The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 09-07-05 Meeting AgendaFILE. COPY AGEN � , FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia September 7, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) July 20, 2005 and August 3, 2005 Minutes..................................................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Code Amendment of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165- Article V, RA Rural Areas District, Section 50; Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 48.10; Article XXII, Definitions, Section 156. This amendment would permit, establish supplemental design criteria, and define Government Services offices in the Rural Areas Zoning District. Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Rezoning 413 -OS of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Fattoa Farris Rust & Associates, PC to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance District) for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall. Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43-A-1513 and 43-A-16. Mrs.Eddy.......................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Waiver Request and Subdivision Approval #17-05. GreyWolfe, Inc., on behalf of David Shore, applicant and Anthony Cook, owner of the property, is requesting a landscaping easement waiver of Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, RP Residential Performance District, Section 165-63.C, Open Space Requirements. GreyWolfe, Inc., is also requesting that curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlight requirements be waived under Frederick County Code, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144.17.L, Streets, Section 144-18, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways, and Section 144-19, Streetlights. The subject property is located 300 feet south on Meadowbrook Drive (Route 1021) from the intersection with Highlander, and is identified by Property Identification Number 8513-1-12A in the Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... (D) 7) Subdivision Approval 925-05 for Stuart and Laurie Putnam in order to subdivide a 4.802 acre parcel in the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District. The property is located at 320 Shawnee Trail, and is identified with Property Identification Number 49A02-3-20 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (E) 8) Other C • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 20, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewal] District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C.- Ours, Opequon District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Mills, Planner II; Bernard Suchicital, Plariner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 07/14/05 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS has been meeting every other Thursday to talk about the zoning changes needed for the potential rural development amendments. He said this work will be ongoing for the next sit: to eight months. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1561 Minutes of July 20, 2005 fl -2 - Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Chairman DeHaven reported that the CPPS is continuing with their work on the UDA (Urban Development Area) Study. He said the work group is continuing to meet every other Tuesday in the Planning Department at 11:00 a.m. Chairman DeHaven said the group will be meeting with the Top of Virginia (TOV) Building Association at the next meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) – 07/19/05 Mtg. Commissioner .Gochenour reported that the HRAB discussed a new application for submission requirements; the intent is to ensure the applicant is aware of the materials needed for a submission review by the HRAB. She said the application will be discussed again at the next meeting and once adopted, it will be included in the land use application. Commissioner Gochenour stated that other topics discussed by the HRAB included: the other groups associated with historic preservation; the HRA-B'spossibility of the HRAB becoming involved with potential role in the RA (Rural Areas) Study; reviving the Plaque Program; and, initiating a historic -home driving tour. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) – 07/19/05 Mtg. Conunissioner Ours reported that the WPC acted on the fo11_owing items: Approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for the conversion of the first floor at 19 South Cameron Street from B 1 to Residential; denied a request for a CUP for an automobile sales business at 806 South Cameron Street, adjacent to the Pizza Hut Take-Out—the WPC believed it was an inappropriate use on a corridor into the historic area of Winchester; and, approved an ordinance to enact provisions for upper -story age -restricted multi -family housing in the Highway -Commercial B2 District. In addition, Commissioner Ours said the WPC approved an ordinance to enact new administrative authority powers to the Zoning Administrator; apparently, State Legislature recently approved some provisions that allow for greater authority among Zoning Administrators. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 1411-05 of Carpers Valley, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, to rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for Residential and Commercial uses. The properties are located approximately one mile east of I-81, on the south side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens subdivision, on the north side of the Airport. This property is also identified with P.LN.s 64-A-82, 64-A-83, 64 -A -83A, Frederick County Planning Commission_ _ Page 1562 Minutes of Tuly 20, 2005 T F�D A r -3- 64-A-86, 64-A-87, 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Chairman DeHaven announced that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. He than turned over the conduction of the meeting to Vice -Chairman Thomas. Commissioner Wilmot announced that upon consultation with the County Attorney, she would also be abstaining from discussion and voting on this item. Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, reported that the Carpers Valley Rezoning Application is a request to rezone six parcels of land consisting of 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for 785 residential units and a 143 -acre employment center. Mr. Lawrence noted that the majority of the property is commonly referred to as the Carpers Valley Golf Course. He explained that the R4 District allows all of the permitted uses in the B 1 (Business Limited), B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), or M 1 (Industrial Limited). Mr. Lawrence pointed out the ten -acre location reserved specifically for an armory site. Mr. Lawrence stated that the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically addresses the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Rt. 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan; these policies recommend the establishment of business and office uses. Because of the subject parcels' proximity to the airport, it is also located within the Airport Support Airport, a delineation in the Comprehensive Policy Plan to help to protect influence on the airport. Regarding the impacts, Mr. Lawrence stated that VDOT concurs with the applicant's conclusions to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) that a Level of Service (LOS) "C" will be achieved with the proffered improvements. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that the applicant has not secured all of the necessary right-of-way to facilitate the TIA-identified road improvements; he noted that VDOT has expressed concern that failure to secure the right-of-way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS. Regarding capital facilities, Mr. Lawrence said that a phasing plan has not been proffered for the non-residential portion of the project; he said that if the non-residential component of the development does not materialize, the projected per unit capital facilities fiscal impact would be $4,174. Mr. Lawrence stated that the R4 District provides the opportunity for the applicant to request modifications to the zoning ordinance and to introduce new housing design standards through the proffers. Mr. Lawrence said the applicant has requested three modifications, as follows: 1) Modification 41: Submission of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at Rezoning, in lieu of the Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval, prior to development of the property.) 2) Modification 42: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single-family attached (townouses) and multi -family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant. 3) Modification 13: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and Commercial Purposes. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1563 Minutes of July 20, 2005 Do 0 5-0 ,NALt Mr. LaNATence next reviewed the applicant's proffers with the Commission. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Planning Commission should provide concurrence with VDOT that the transportation proffers offered with the rezoning application are satisfactory, that all right-of-way is secured; and, that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the comments of the County Attorney. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A) said he was representing the Carpers Valley project, along with Mr. John Conrad of Miller & Smith and Mr. Jim Vickers of Oakcrest, who are partners also representing the ownership of this project. In addition, he introduced Mr. Mike Lickman with PHR&A's Transportation Plarming, and Patrick Sowers of PHR&A who have worked extensively on this project. Mr. Maddox presented the project to the Commission and talked about some of the amenities provided on the site, such as the provision of a 4,000 square -foot community center, two swimming pools, pocket parks, and inter -model transportation; he provided a description of the various housing types; he pointed out the locations for the Annory site and the area to be possibly used as a federal government facility. He talked about some of the airport -related issues, noting that the dwelling units will be 1,800 feet from the center of the airport's runway; he pointed out the 15 -acre and two -acre set-aside areas to accommodate the airport's MDP, which would be reserved for the airport for a period of eight years; and, he also pointed out the acreage requested from the airport for easement or land acquisition to construct future roadways. Mr. Maddox next reviewed the modification requests sought by the applicant. Mr. Maddox had no issues with the comments from the County Attorney and he believed all the continents could be incorporated into the proffers. Connnissioner Ours asked Mr. Maddox about the potential connection of Coverstone to Prince Frederick and if any preliminary discussions have taken place in making that connection. Mr. Maddox stated that they met with the Airport Authority and presented proposals to acquire the 6,000 square feet needed from the airport. Mr. Maddox said that until a land use decision is made by the County, he didn't think he had good grounds to discuss the acquisition of property from the airport. Regarding the 15 -acre and two -acre set aside areas for the airport's T -hangers, Mr. Maddox said that they are willing to hold the land for eight years for the airport. He said the airport was uncertain about their ability to acquire the land under the prospect that there may not be a federal grant because of the inclusion of a residential component in the project, he said the airport is also concerned about whether the residential component would become politically involved to an attempt to limit airport operations to the future. Mr. Maddox stated that the residential component of this project is what makes it feasible, he said the Airport Support Zone does not preclude some residential. Conunissioner Kriz inquired about the possibility of the housing types changing from what was currently depicted on the GDP. Mr. Maddox replied that no single-family homes would be used. Commissioner Ours asked if the multi -family residential were designed to be rental units_ Mr. Maddox replied that the residential portion was designed for faintly homes. He said that although there could be rentals, that was not their intent. Commissioner Gocltenour said it was her understanding there was insufficient data on water quality and quantity for this project. Mr. Maddox gave his interpretation of the comments by the Service Authority; he believed the comnnents indicated there should be no issue with the transmission capabilities of the system and that the County Sanitation Authority had sufficient capacity. Vice-Chainnan Thomas advised that processing of this application does not guarantee connection permits. Frederick County Plaiming Commission Page 1564 Minutes of July 20, 2005 I a -5 - Commissioner Straub commented that she spoke with several representatives of the Service Authority and they stated that because of the current DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) regulations, the Service Authority will be limited as to how much can be discharged into creeks and rivers that empty into the. Chesepeake Bay. Vice -Chairman Thomas next invited representatives from the airport to come forward to speak and the following persons came forward: Mr. Mark K. Flynn, legal counsel for the Airport Authority since 1987, introduced himself and Delta Airport Consultant engineer, Mr. John Longnaker. Mr. Longnaker presented handouts and colored exhibits of a layout plan which the Winchester Regional Airport has adopted to guide the airport for the next 20 years. Mr. Longnaker described the airport's future growth plans to the Commission. He said that due to increased demand, changes to fleet mix, and other issues, the airport is concerned it may be constrained to accommodate future growth. Referring to the airport's land acquisition plan, Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Longnaker how soon the 21 acres on the north side of the runway could be purchased. Commissioner Kriz remarked that the applicant has agreed to hold the land for eight years. Mr. Longnaker replied that the priority for purchasing that particular land would be low on the list within the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) funding system because the FAA would be focusing on the south side taxi -way runway. He did not foresee being able to start on the north side for 10-15 years. Mr. Flynn referred to the July 18, 2005 letter from the Winchester Regional Airport Authority to Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., which stated that "...by a majority vote on July 14, 2005, the Airport Authority opposes the R4 Rezoning Plan as presented with 785 residential units and any rezoning request that would include dense housing within the Airport Support Area." Mr. Flynn said that residents who live within the vicinity of an airport tend to oppose airport activities and expansion of such activities because of concern for noise and flyovers. Mr. Flynn was concerned that the residential element of the proposal may have a significant impact on the commercial viability of the airport. Ms. Serena R Manuel, the Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport, stated that the airport will not be able to purchase the applicant's reserved land on the north side of the runway within eight years. Ms. Manuel said that development work needed on the south side of the runway is a priority and will need a substantial amount of Federal and State dollars. She said that if the land on the north was purchased prior to development on the south, it would require 100% local funding, which would need to come from the County of Frederick and the City of Winchester. Ms. Manuel said the airport is open to compromises and is willing to work with the applicant; she said they have reduced the airport's 50 -acre layout plan down to 20 acres and an easement is planned to reduce the amount of property the airport would need to continue growth. Regarding Coverstone Drive extended, Ms. Manuel stated that the potential Rt. 522 realignment shown on the plans has not been approved and much is contingent upon surveys and elevations yet to be conducted. She said the project is contingent upon not interfering with the approach surfaces of the Winchester Airport and on approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Virginia Department of Aviation (VDOA). Secondly, she said the airport has not yet reviewed a site plan for the area referred to as the public safety building area and a lease has not been negotiated. Ms. Manuel said the airport has earmarked about five acres for a public safety center, but has not proceeded any further with Frederick County to finalize an agreement. Ms. Manuel said the airport has concerns about a 60 -foot right-of-way through their property. She added that if the airport negotiates a lease with Frederick County, the airport would retain ownership of the land and it would not convey to Frederick County. Frederick County Planning CormnissionPhA Page 1565 Minutes of July 20, 2005 am In addition, Ms. Manuel was concerned about the large -lot landowners on the southern side of the ai Dort; she said she had already been approached by two landowners who have expressed interest in constructing townhouses within the Airport Support Area. She said the airport is concerned about the precedent that may be set. Ms. Manuel also mentioned the applicant's comments that airport noise was not significant along Rt. 50; she said they have received complaints from people who live on Rt. 50, in the City of Winchester, and one recent complaint from a resident on Carpers Road (Old Rt. 50). Commission members inquired about the percentage of aircraft activity between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Ms. Manuel replied that air ambulance and helicopter medi-vac activity takes place 24/7; and commercial activity has increased to about 30%. Commission members spoke with Ms. Manuel about the airport's future vision and the possibility of the airport developing partnerships with adjacent landowners to accomplish the airport's vision for future growth. Ms. Manuel said that the airport does not want to be landlocked by adjacent properties and they were concerned about their ability to purchase the reserved property through local funding, whether it be eight, ten, or 15 years. Mr. Joe Delia, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Project Engineer for Winchester Regional Airport, said he participated in the initial development of the Airport Support Area procedures. Mr. Delia said the intent was to clearly separate aviation activities from residential use. He said a condition of federal funding is for the owner of the airport to do everything possible to ensure compatible land use and to maintain the ability to accommodate revenue generation that makes the airport self-sustaining. Vice -Chairman Thomas inquired if federal funding would stop if residential construction occurred within 1,000 feet of the runway and Mr. Delia said the finding would not stop, but he was concerned it would impact the viability of the airport. Mr. Randall P. Burdette, the Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation (VDOA), said the FAA and the VDOA determines where the money should go for the Commonwealth's airports by evaluating which airports have the ability to grow and to support the overall network. He described Winchester Airport as an economic engine for the County and a good monetary return on the County's investment. Mr. Burdette said that the number one reason for airport closings today is incompatible land use encroachment. He cautioned that adding insulation in a home, or having homeowners sign a waiver recognizing the adjacent airport, or the fact that the airport was pre-existing, has never stopped a citizen from complaining. He stated that the community can have an impact on the customers using an airport. Vice -Chairman Thomas next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Paul Anderson was one of the Frederick County representatives on the Airport Authority and he was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Anderson said that he participated in the establishment of the airport protection zone procedures, which were written to protect the airport from future residential encroachment and were based on the traffic pattern of the airport. Mr. Anderson said he had a problem with the R4 Zoning because it allowed residential and he did not believe residential use was compatible with the airport. He was concerned that continued residential encroachment on the airport would eventually lead to its closing. Mr. Ray Hoover, a resident at 1946 Airport Road and a user of the airport, talked about the standard traffic pattern for Winchester Airport's runways, which is set up for safety purposes. He said it was not only designed to separate aircraft, but to protect people on the ground by preventing mid-air collisions. Mr. Hoover was opposed to pl acing high-density housing under an airport traffic area and he believed the applicant's plan was unsafe. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2005 B 0 M Page ] 566 F -7 - Mr. Ernie Neff, a resident at 918 Airport Road, said that several years ago, the airport bought six homes along Airport Road to make a safer airport. He said the airport also took a considerable portion of the front of his property. W. Neff said he didn't think it was right for homes to be built adjacent to the airport, when the airport was buying properties to move houses out. Mr. John Goode, a resident of Stonewall District and a partner in Blue Ridge Industries, was in favor of the rezoning and believed the applicants had done a tremendous job with their proposal. Mr. Goode said he had concerns about the comments made by airport representatives. He said he had 80 employees working in the Blue Ridge Industries building, which is adjacent to the airport, and if the users of airport facility were in such a risk, then he might be considered negligent in allowing his employees to work in his Blue Ridge facility. Mr. Goode questioned the statements made by airport representatives that they could not fund the purchase of the property to the north of the runway. Mr. Goode said that the airport's executive director, Ms. Manuel, laid the groundwork for an answer to their financial problem by noting that they lease the land under the hangers to corporations. Mr. Goode said that a typical business practice is to take lease income payments and use them to make debt service payments on land purchases. He said that if corporate America is not willing to come to the table in eight years and sign leases to fund those payments to purchase the property, then the airport is not going to need that land. Mr. Goode believed that the offer of the applicant to reserve the property was of tremendous value to the airport. He said that typically, in corporate America, you would not get an option for eightyears and that was a very long time. Referring to the federal and state funding, he questioned why the private sector couldn't come up with the remaining 2% funding, if it was unavailable through local funding; he commented that if it was that important to the private sector, the private sector will find it somewhere. He also questioned why the purchase of the land wasn't important enough for the FAA to provide funding. Mr. Goode said he was also disappointed that the airport Authority would hold 6,000 square feet hostage to the local land transportation needs. There being no other citizen wishing to speak, Vice -Chairman Thomas closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium to address the comments that were made. Mr. Maddox said the County had an important and strategic goal for this land and he believed this proposal met that goal. He appreciated the comments made by airport representatives and believed those comments were made to protect the airport. Mr. Maddox said they would like to negotiate with the airport; however, he believed that until a decision was made on the land use issue, negotiations between the applicant and the airport can not go forward. The Planning Commissioners next provided their comments about the rezoning. Vice -Chairman Thomas commented about the 750 units proposed. It was his opinion that it gave the opportunity to have a growth area inside the Urban Development Area (UDA), as opposed to the Rural Areas. He also commented that there did not seem to be a specific determination on how far the dwelling units needed to be from the runway; he said that 1,000 feet was given as a minimum, but there was no determination of what was sufficient. Commissioner Ours hoped that compromises could be reached so this plan would work for both sides and for Frederick County. He thought the best use for this area was commercial and he believed the developers had a good plan. He believed the applicant had logically assumed they would need to have some residential to be able to have the commercial development. Commissioner Ours said that if this proposal would have been proposed for the UDA anywhere else in Frederick County, it would pass unequivocally because it was a good plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1567 Minutes of July 20, 2005 no, Commissioner Straub believed the proposal could be better. She was not in favor of having residential use near the airport because of its impact on the viability of the airport and for safety reasons. She noted that although this plan has eliminated the school, she objected to the four-story dwelling units instead of the previously proposed two-story units. Commissioner Straub said she would like to see this property used as a business park with an adjacent regional park. Commissioner Gochenour agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Straub. In addition, Commissioner Gochenour wanted to see the UDA and the Rural Areas Studies completed before more land is placed within the UDA. She was also concerned about the quality and quantity of available water. Commissioner Gochenour believed more time was needed to gather data before this rezoning proposal was supported. Commissioner Watt thought the plan was good; however, he could not support 750 homes next to the airport. It was Commissioner Triplett's opinion that this was a good plan. Regarding the residential units proposed, Commmissioner Triplett pointed out all of the other residential subdivisions in the immediate vicinity, such as RavenWing and Miller Heights. Commissioner Manuel believed this was a good plan as well and said he would support it. Commissioner Manuel was pleased with the fact that it presented the opportunity for affordable housing. He commented that affordable housing will have to be moderate to high density. He said that eight years ago, affordable housing meant dwellings under $100,000; now we are looking for lots under $100,000. Commissioner Kriz said he was concerned about the residential, as well as land acquisition by the airport. He suggested the possibility of the applicant reserving the property on the north side of the airport for a few more years so that the airport could acquire it. He looked forward to continued growth by the airport and the airport's ability to purchase the property. He hoped some type of compromise could be reached on that issue. He also believed this was a good plan. Vice-Chainnan Thomas believed this was the right time for this type of development in Frederick County. He believed this type of housing, density, and community development was needed to get people into houses they could afford. He believed it was unreasonable to expect the landowner to have 300 acres of commercial property when, in that area, there is already a significant annount of vacant commercial property. If for some reason, the commercial tenants would choose not to come in the second and third land bay areas, he would not be in favor of placing housing in those two land bays. He said that 750 dwellings on the 300 -acre property is as much as he would ever consider voting for. Vice -Chairman Thomas stated that a significant amount of cooperation between the developer and the airport would be needed to make this project work. Upon motion made by Conmissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning # 11-05 of Carpers Valley, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, to rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for Residential and Commercial uses with the proffers and conditions discussed, as well as the three proposed modifications requested by the applicant, as follows: 1. Modification 41: Submission of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at Rezoning, in lieu of the Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval, prior to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1568 Minutes of July 20, 2005 Do M nA ME development of the property.) 2. Modification 42: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single-family attached (townouses) and multi -family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant. 3. Modification 43: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and Commercial Purposes. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, NO: Watt, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven, Wilmot (Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-64, Recreation Facilities. This is a request from Greenway Engineering regarding waivers of recreational facilities for housing types with lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that this amendment would enable the Board of Supervisors to waive the community center requirement specified in Section 165-64(A) in single-family, small -lot subdivisions containing less than 50 lots. Mr. Cheran explained that the waiver may be requested by an applicant during the consideration of the subdivision design plan, if no master development plan is required. He said the applicant will be required to demonstrate that an equivalent recreation value of three recreational units for each 30 dwelling units, prorated, is being provided within the project, to the County, or a combination of both as a condition requesting approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, explained that when he represented the Westbury Commons rezoning, which consisted of an 11 -lot subdivision, the question arose as to the ability of a community of this size to maintain a community center building. Secondly, because of the dollar value requirement, the question arose as to what kind of community building could be constructed for 11 lots. Mr. Wyatt said the suggestion was not to do away with the requirement, but to provide an opportunity for applicants to come in on a case-by-case basis and provide a better alternative for recreational amenities within the community. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission had no problems with the provision of a waiver and believed the Frederick County Planning Commission DO J L' Page1569 Minutes of July 20, 2005 MA V T -10 - amendment was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Article `vi, RP Residential Performance) District, Section 165-64, Recreation Facilities, allowing requests for waivers of recreational facilities for housing types with lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet. (Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24(C), Lot Requirements. This is a request from Greenway Engineering regarding waivers of the public street requirement for age -restricted communities. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, stated that this amendment would enable the Board of Supervisors to allow a waiver of the public street requirements as specified in Section 144- 24(C) and to allow a complete system of private roads within a proffered age -restricted community. Mr. Cheran explained that this waiver may be requested by the applicant during the consideration of a rezoning application or during consideration of the master development plan. He said the applicant is required to provide a conceptual design which demonstrates the proposed private street system layout and provides for the cross section dimensional base and pavement detail that meets or exceeds VDOT standards as a condition of requesting approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cheran added that if private streets are allowed, homeowners associations will be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, explained that the purpose behind this text amendment request is the desire of age -restricted communities to have their developments gated for safety reasons; he commented that communities can not be gated, if they have public street systems. Mr. Wyatt stated that the R5 District of the County Code allows for private streets and age -restricted by right; however, age - restricted communities usually fall within the RP District, where there is currently no provision. Mr. Wyatt commented on the management structure of new subdivisions and stated that generally, there is a monthly assessment for all of the residents in the subdivision and it covers maintenance to roads, lawns, etc. He said the desire to have a gated community is going to out weigh the additional costs residents will pay in their monthly dues. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that during the discussion with the Planning Commission in May, the Commission had requested that the words, "cross-section dimensional base" be modified to include, "vertical dimensional base and pavement section." He said the other comment was to make sure the waiver was only applicable to "proffered" age -restricted communities. Cormiiissioner Thomas commented that it was intended that the structural or vertical section be included in accordance with VDOT standards because both the horizontal and vertical sections are required for VDOT to accept the road into the system. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of Tuly 20, 2005 Page1570 _11— There 11_ There were no public comments. The Planning Commission had no problems with the provision of a waiver and believed the amendment was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24(C), Lot Requirements, to allow waivers of the public street requirement for age - restricted communities, with a minor change to the wording specifying that the private street system layout provides for both the cross section and vertical (horizontal) section dimensional base and pavement detail that meets or exceeds VDOT standards. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Watt, Straub NO: Gochenour, DeHaven (Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan 908-05 for Carroll Industrial Park, submitted by Painter -Lewis, LC, for industrial uses. The properties are located on Ebert Road (Rt. 837) and are identified with P.I.N.s 43-A- 83, 43-A-84, 43 -A -84A, and 43-A-85 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the preliminary master development plan (MDP) for the Carroll Industrial Park is a proposal to develop approximately 107.8 acres of M2 (Industrial General) Zoned property. She said the property was depicted as M2 on the original County zoning maps and, therefore, does not have proffers associated with the plan. Ms Perkins next talked about the site history for this property. She said that the original Frederick County Zoning Map depicts the zoning for a majority of the subject parcel as M2 (Industrial General) District with a small portion being RA (Rural Areas). She said based on research, it is believed the entire parcel is zoned M2 and that the details of the original zoning maps were unclear. She explained that this property has not been subdivided and properties zoned in the 1960s were generally included in their entirety within the new land use designation. It was the staff's belief that this entire site was meant to be M2. Ms. Perkins continued, stating that the Rt. 37 extension covers a part of the southern portion of this property. She said the applicant has reserved this area with a "limits of use" designation and has provided a statement on the MDP that any uses on the property that must be removed due to the construction of Rt. 37 will not be compensated or relocated by VDOT. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1571 Minutes of July 20, 2005 ' S Ms. Perkins stated that the planned road network for this area consists of a major collector road that goes through the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, through the Car -roll Lndustrial Park, through some additional properties, and then to an intersection at Old Charlestown Road_ While all of the planned roads on the property have been shown on the MDP, the applicant is proposing to turn Ebert Road into the new major collector road instead of the major collector road location which aligns with Old Charlestown Road. Mr. Tim Painter, with Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., stated that this project is merely an extension of the industrial use taking place on this property since the mid 60's. Mr. Painter said they are seeking further subdivision for additional industrial use and to enhance the property with two railroad spurs and two regional storm water facilities. Mr. Painter talked about the preliminary site work that has been conducted. He said a traffic study was conducted to address impacts that would be needed along Ebert Road at the intersection of Rt. 11 and the Level of Service (LOS) would be "C" or better with the improvements proposed. He described the road plan for the site. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the applicant planned to build an industrial -type intersection for truck traffic with Ebert Road and Rt. 11. Mr. Painter replied yes; he said it will be signalized at full build -out. There were no public comments. Commissioner Wilmot stated that in her experience, it had been apparent in the economic life of Frederick County that a well-done, M2 industrial park would be an asset. She could think of no better place for this to happen than at this location. Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT was called forward to address the proposed elimination of the planned road and the use of Ebert Road as the new major collector road. Mr. Ingram stated that he did not have a problem with the change at this time. Some members of the Commission commented that they preferred the use of Ebert Road in lieu of the original planned loop, which would bring the road close to the quarry. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 408-05 for Carroll Industrial Park, submitted by Painter -Lewis, LC, for industrial uses, with the understanding that entire property was always meant to be zoned M2 and with endorsement of making Ebert Road the new major collector road with upgrades as opposed to the planned road which would comlect with Old Charlestown Road. (Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1572 Minutes of July 20, 2005 �� -13 - Master Development Plan 907-05 for Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for R4 (Residential Planned Community) use. The properties are located on the south side of Old Charlestown Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). The properties are further identified with P.LN.s 44-A-292, 44-A-293, and 44 -A -31A in the Stonewall District. Action — Continued to Next Meeting Due to PC By -Laws of Mandatory 11:00 P.M. Adjournment Planner Bernard Suchicital reported that the rezoning for the 794 -acre Stephenson Village project was approved with proffers on September 24, 2003. Mr. Suchicital said this master development plan (MDP) is for Phase I of Stephenson Village and will include 460 single-family units, 110 townhouses, and 360 multi -family units on 285 acres. He pointed out the area for the age -restricted community and stated that there are no commercial uses planned for Phase 1. Mr. Suchicital next identified the staff's outstanding issues concerning this MDP. First, he pointed out that the applicant has failed to show the Rt. 37 corridor on their MDP; he said the Comprehensive Policy Plan (Northeast Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan) and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) clearly shows the Rt. 37 corridor running through the Stephenson Village property. He also noted that the road design for Cross Cannon Boulevard, from Old Charlestown Road through the project to Rt. 11, does not provide for a raised landscaped median, curb and gutter, and a bike path. In addition, Mr. Suchicital recommended the following: the continuation of the bike path and sidewalks along Old Charlestown Road to link the Stephensons Village project with the existing residences in Stephenson; the enhanced pedestrian access from Milburn Road to Cross Cannon Blvd; and, the phasing and clarification of the completion of sections of the major collector road. He further recommended that the applicant identify the proffered school and parks sites throughout the MDP, the subdivision, and the platting processes. This would include provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access to the public facilities, as well as provisions for water and sewer. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design -engineering firm representing Brookfield Homes and Stephenson Associates in this MDP, came forward to address the issues raised by the staff. Mr. Wyatt believed they had addressed all of the issues raised by the staff, with the exception of the Rt. 37 right-of-way. Mr. Wyatt said that when the rezoning was approved, there was no commitment for a Rt. 37 right-of-way provision in the text proffered or on the proffered GDP. Mr. Wyatt referred to alignment studies done by Baker & Associates in 1992 and described the Alternative D and Alternative C routes; he said the Board of Supervisors reconunended the Alternative C alignment. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has recommended that Rt. 37, between Rt. 7 and I-81, be developed as a four -lane divided and controlled managed access highway. He commented that one of the things Brookfield and Stephenson Associates tasked Greenway with was to come up with a conceptual design that would meet the intent ofkeeping the integrity of Rt. 37 between Rt. 7 and the new I-81 interchange, but that would continue to meet the recommendations of the MPO. Mr. Wyatt said their resulting concept, which preserves the location of Rt. 7 and preserves the new interchange at I-81, utilizes the existing alignment shown for Alternative D, and he described that route to the Commission. Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission to consider this alternative; he said they were convinced that the Alternative C alignment, primarily because of the existing eased areas, is not going to be the alignment that will be successful to link Rt. 37, between Rt. 7 and 1-81. In addition, Mr. Wyatt believed they had addressed all the issues identified by the staff, with the exception of providing the Rt. 37 right-of-way. In conclusion, Mr. Wyatt stated the applicant is committed to making sure that water and sewer is available to the public school site and to the public park site. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1573 Minutes of July 20, 2005 -14 - Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Gary Oates, a resident of the Stonewall District, said that in the early 1990s, he postponed the construction of his home until the Board of Supervisors voted on Alternative C for Rt. 37. Mr. Oates said that this new proposed route, Alternative D, goes directly through his new home. He said that several ofhis neighbors are in the same situation. Commissioner Straub asked the applicant if the proposed route could be modified. Mr. Wyatt replied that the conceptual alignment shown could be modified; He commented that this is strictly a conceptual design produced at the request of the property owners to implement a proposal everyone could work with to build that section of Rt. 37. He said the proposal was in no way, shape, or form a final alignment. Mr. Wyatt was convinced, however, that considering the events that have transpired since 1992, Route 37 would not work where it is designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Wyatt believed the proffer that was approved when the R4 Zoning was adopted did not require them to shout= Rt. 37; however, instead of simply taking the stance that they were not required to get involved, they attempted a more proactive approach and tried to find a solution. Mr. Wyatt suggested that there may be a better alignment to connect Rt. 7 with I-81. He said they were not in a position to provide the right-of- way for Rt. 37 for Alternative C and he hoped that additional dialogue could occur. In light of what had been proposed, Commissioner Gochenour moved that the MDP be tabled. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. Chairman DeHaven announced that it was now 11:00 p.m. and the Planning Commission's By - Laws require adjourunent at 11:00 p.m. Chairman DeHaven apologized to Mr. Wyatt and announced that continuation of the consideration of this MDP will be rescheduled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. due to the Planning Conunission's By -Laws requirement. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1 574 Minutes of July 20, 2005 �� MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 3, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael R. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Mills, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission minutes of June 15, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & ReQulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 07/28/05 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS has begun their review of the sign ordinance and will probably be working on this section for the next several months. Frederick County Planning Commission Page l 575 Minutes of August 3, 2005 @ T -2 - CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Diane Kearns with the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) announced that the CCC is going to be sponsoring an educational forum on regional transportation on Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Our Health Conference Room. The jurisdictions of Berkeley County, Clarke County, the City of Winchester, Frederick County, Jefferson County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) have been invited to engage in discussion regarding regional transportation issues with the general public. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 904-05 of Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. The 73.39 -acre site is located on the south side of Rossum Lane (Rt. 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Rt. 867). This property is also identified with P.I.N.s 65 -A -49B and 65-A-55 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this request proposes 285 residential units consisting of 145 single-family homes and 140 townhomes on 73.79 acres at a density of 3.86 units per acre. Mr. Ruddy explained that with the approval of the Glenmont Village, Section 6, on April 21,1988, Lot 65- A -49B, totaling 24.09 acres was created. He said this parcel has remained separate from the Glenmont Village subdivision and is undeveloped until this time. Mr. Ruddy said the parcel was recently acquired by the applicant of this rezoning and it is the intent of the applicant to incorporate this parcel into the acreage of the adjacent Lambert parcel and create the development known as Senseny Village. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that the parcels are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan designates this area for residential uses. He pointed out that Rt. 37 is identified in the Eastern Road Plan and is a priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. He noted that accommodation for this new major arterial road should be incorporated into the project; he said that Senseny Road is also identified as an improved major collector road and is designated as a bicycle route on the County's bicycle plan. Mr. Ruddy next spoke about the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project which concluded that the 2,668 vehicle trips per day associated with the Senseny Village application is acceptable and manageable. Mr. Ruddy added that the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single- family detached unit and $3,000 per single-family attached townhouse unit for transportation improvements to the Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike. In addition, the applicant has proffered right -turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections; improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards; and the dedication of right-of-way for the future Rt. 37 Eastern Bypass, Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the property owners of Senseny Village, the Lamberts and Taylor Grace, LLC, stated that meetings were held with the Glenmont Village Homeowners Association and design issues were discussed. Mr. Wyatt said that based on these discussions, a Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2005 Page 1576 -3- 150' open space strip has been designated between the rear property line and the townhouse units, preserving the existing woodlands area adjacent to Glenmont Village; traffic calming measures have been incorporated at Glenridge Drive, where Rossum Drive provides access to Senseny Road, the integrity of the un -named tributary of the Opequon Creek has been protected by a no -disturbance open space designation; and right-of-way through the lower portion of the property has been reserved for Route 37, Corridor C. Mr. Wyatt discussed the monetary proffers, specifically, the $10,000 per single-family detached unit and $8,000 per single-family attached unit for capital facilities impacts costs and, in addition, a monetary contribution for off-site transportation improvements in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per single-family attached unit. He said the proffered contribution for off-site transportation improvements has the potential to generate up to $1,145,000 and may be used as matching funds by Frederick County for up to $2.2 million in available funding. He said the proffer was written to allow off-site transportation improvements; however, the applicant has specifically requested that the improvements occur either on the Senseny Road corridor or to continue with Hagerty Road, which connects Rt. 7 to Senseny Road. He added that the right -turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections, the improvements to Rossum Lane, and the internal street system, will all be accomplished by the developer. Commission members inquired about the anticipated price range per unit and size of lots, they had questions on the phasing plan, they asked for the applicant's comments on the possible view of the landfill from the new homes, and they questioned the status for the existing pond. Mr. Wyatt responded that the anticipated price range for single-family homes was $350,0004400,000 with a lot size of 10-12,000 square feet and town homes would be $190,000. Mr. Wyatt agreed to modify the phasing plan by tying the first phase to the year the MDP is approved and continuing with three additional phases. He commented that the man-made pond will be drained and filled in. Regarding the proximity of the land fill, Mr. Wyatt said that due to a heavily - wooded area and topography, landfill operations would not be visible. In addition, he noted that curb -side trash pick-up will be paid for by homeowners association fees. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Valerie Pullman, a resident of Glenmont Village, said she was representing the homeowners association for Glenmont Village. Ms. Pullman said the homeowners have met and collectively determined the following concerns: 1) clarification as to why both tracks of land are not considered proffered residential_; 2) preference for identical wording in Section A-2 as in Section A-1 prohibiting the development of garden apartments; 3) concern about increased traffic through Glenmont Village without the benefit of sidewalks; considering the majority of traffic '"all be traveling on Rossum Lane, the homeowners request sidewalk installation on one side of Rossum for pedestrian safety, 4) the ten -foot non -disturbance easement is insufficient to protect the existing trees in the green strip from utility installation or road alignment modifications and wording should be specific to guarantee the preservation of the entire 50 feet of existing woodlands; 5) if approvals are not obtained and road work is not completed before 2007, the applicant's document allows them to obtain up to 210 building permits, eliminating any phasing aspect of the plan; 6) the applicant's document does not restrict grading and infrastructure installation prior to the road improvements; 7) concern for storm water drainage impacts in Glenmont Village; and 8) identification of a new school location before new homes are occupied. Ms. Pullman concluded by saying that the homeowners of Glenmont Village appreciated the outstanding cooperation they have received from Greenway Engineering and, with the exception of the issues raised, support the proposal. Ms. Diane Wolford, a 20 -year resident of Rossum Lane, was concerned that a 50 -foot right-of- way improvement on Rossum Lane would take a considerable portion of her front yard and driveway. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1577 Minutes of August 3, 2005 DO l _ -4 - Mr. Keith Racer, a resident of Glenridge Drive, agreed with all of the comments made by Ms. Pullman for the Glenmont Village Homeowners Association, but wanted to reiterate concerns about the increased traffic impacts, especially on Glenridge Drive. Mr. Racer described the existing lots and homes on Glenridge which were built in the 1980's, noting that front yards are small with short driveways and back yards are sloped. He speculated that the majority of people purchasing the future town houses will be commuting to northern Virginia and will use Glenridge Drive to exit the development. Mr. Racer was concerned about safety for neighborhood children and pedestrians; he suggested the possibility of changing the town houses to single-family units and possibly conducting traffic counts on Glenridge Drive and Rossum Lane. Ms. Connie Linaweaver, a resident on Rossum Lane, had the same concerns as Ms. Diane Wolford about the possibility of losing a portion of her front yard with the improvements to Rossum Lane. She said the residents do not want to have to park their vehicles on the street. Since everyone who wanted to speak had the opportunity to do so, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the comments made by the citizens. Regarding wording within the proffer, Mr. Wyatt said they would be willing to modify the wording in the proffer to clarify the issues raised by the homeowners association. In particular, he said they would be willing to reference the property identification numbers consistently throughout the document, which would eliminate any potential for apartments within this project; and, additional specificity will be included to guarantee a minimum 50' woodland preservation strip between the property lines and the road right-of-way. Regarding the Rossum Lane issue, Mr. Wyatt said that Rossum Lane is a 50 -foot right-of-way and VDOT has expressed the need for a wider pavement section because they believe there will be on -street parking. Mr. Wyatt said they would be willing to entertain a sidewalk on one side, if space was available after pavement width, curb and gutter, and utilities. Mr. Wyatt believed it was appropriate to implement the grading plan while the heavy equipment is on site conducting the road work. W. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT came forward to address the concerns raised from the residents along Rossum Lane regarding the loss of their front yards to accoirnnodate road improvements. Mr. Ingram explained that all improvements would take place within VDOT's existing right-of-way. A comment was made that residents may not have been aware of VDOT's 50 -foot right-of-way and may have been maintaining a portion of VDOT's existing right-of-way. Commissioner Gochenour stated that the overcrowding of Senseny Road School has an impact on the school children and their education; and, in her opinion, was a primary issue in the consideration of this proposal. Commissioner Straub commended both Greenway Engineering, for working with the Glenmont Village Homeowners Association, and the homeowners association for being so astute in studying the applicant's proposal. Her primary issues in considering this proposal were the overcrowded schools in the Senseny Road area, the proximity of the county's landfill to the proposed development, the potential regulations for limiting sewage flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility; and the transportation infrastructure. Commissioner Straub made a motion to deny the rezoning and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour. This motion was defeated, however, due to the following vote: Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2005 D Do Page 1578 �� -5— YES (TO DENY THE REZONING): Straub, Gochenour NO: Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven Commissioner Thomas made a motion to approve the rezoning with all of the revisions to the proffers, as stated and agreed to by the applicant, to be coordinated by the Planning Department before consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning 404-05 of Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with all of the revisions to the proffers as stated and agreed to by the applicant to be coordinated by the Planning Department before consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven NO: Straub, Gochenour (Note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #12-05 for the Villages at Artrip and Master Development Plan 909-05, submitted by Dewberry & Davis, LLC, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed-use development of 905 residential units and retail, restaurant, and office uses. The property is located one mile west of I-81, 3/d mile north of Tasker Road (Rt. 649),150' north of Fair Lawn Court (Rt. 1176), and west of Canter Estates, Section 5. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -99A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 60 Days Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Villages at Artrip is a request to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for a residential planned community with an arrangement of residential villages containing a mixture of housing types which are focused around a neighborhood commercial center. Also proposed is the dedication of areas for public use, including an 11 -acre site for a proposed elementary school. He said that the parcels comprising this rezoning are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and are within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. Mr. Ruddy said the construction of Warrior Drive as a major four -lane section through this project has also been provided; this would link Warrior Drive with the Wakeland Manor project and the adjacent Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1579 Minutes of August 3, 2005 a. Crosspointe development. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and an extension of Lakeside Drive into the project; both are identified as collector roads with a two-lane section. Mr. Ruddy next discussed elements of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TTA); he said the projected mix of uses would ultimately generate approximately 15,623 vehicle trips per day with Warrior Drive as the primary access into the project. He said that the TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip are acceptable and manageable withimplementation of the identified improvements. Mr. Ruddy next described the three phases of the project as follows: Phase I assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; Phase 2 assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker to the northern property extents of the project; and Phase 3 assumes the build out of the entire Villages at Artrip development along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard, a future roadway within the planned Crosspointe development. He added that a bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout the project. Mr. Ruddy next reviewed the three modification requests sought by the applicant, as follows: Modification #1, Section 165-72.B.(2), Introduction of New Housing Types; Modification #2, Section 165-71, Request for greater than 40% of total residential land area to be used for multi -family housing; and Modification #3, Section 165-62.1), Request for increase in the overall gross density of the project from four units per acre to 5.4 units per acre. Mr. Ruddy reviewed the key elements of the proffer statement with the Commission, noting that the submittal of the master development plan is probably the most significant element of the proffer statement. There next ensued a discussion on whether the 11 -acres designated for the school site was determined to be a little less than optimal in size and, in addition, if the five acres of open space to the south could be added to the school site. It was noted that the school board's preference was for a minimum of 15 acres; there were also questions about the use of some of the land from the designated open space area for the school site because of its trees and pristine quality. Mr. Ruddy replied that if it was the desire of the County and the applicant to adjust the acreage, he suggested that the language on the MDP and the dedication be modified now to avoid confusion. Commissioner Kriz asked if comments were received from the County's attorney on the proffer statement. Mr. Ruddy replied that Mr. Mitchell had no substantial comments and it was Mr. Mitchell's opinion that the proffer was acceptable to meet the requirements of the ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and the proffer was also sufficiently enforceable. Chairman DeHaven next called for the applicant to come forward. Mr. John Foote, attorney, was representing The Tower Companies, the developers of The Villages at Artrip project. Mr. Foote introduced others present who are involved in the project, including The Tower Company representatives, Mr. Brian Abramson, Mr. Stuart Margulies, Mr. Jonathan Gertz, and Mr. Charles Segerman; representatives with Dewberry & Davis, LLC, the civil engineers, Mr. Jim Brown and Mr. David Frank; and representatives from PHR&A, Mr. John Callow and Mr. Michael Glickman, traffic analysts. Mr. Foote said this project will provide a major link for the completion of Warrior Drive and the applicant has committed to the construction of Warrior Drive through the property, the construction of Parkins Mill Road, and construction of the bridge across to Wakeland Manor. Mr. Foote described the details of the layout for the proposed development for the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1580 Minutes of August 3, 2005 �l� F1 P 7 11 5 ut; -7 - Regarding the transportation issues, Mr. Foote said the applicant performed a supplemental transportation impact analysis to address the scenario raised by the staff in which the Crosspointe development is not built and The Villages at Artrip is at full build -out. Mr. Foote said this supplemental analysis concluded that even in the circumstances described by the staff, the crucial intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive would continue to function at a LOS "C." Mr. Foote next addressed the commercial development for the site. He stated that the applicant can only commit to the initial construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development. Mr. Foote said that once Warrior Drive has been completed through the limits of this property to Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe, it would allow the commercial center to be viable and they could complete the construction of the 118,500 square feet of commercial area. Regarding the Frederick County School Board's need for a 15 -acre school site and the applicant's designated 11 -acre site reserved for a new school, Mr. Foote suggested that the County may want to use the area designated for public use to supplement land needed by the school board and they were prepared to modify the proffer to that effect. He also pointed out an adjoining property to the south owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. He said that the Authority's Director, Mr. Wellington Jones, was approached by representatives of Dewberry & Davis, LLC about the use of a portion of the Sanitation Authority's property for a school and Mr. Jones was amenable to the suggestion. Mr. Jim Brown, principal designer with Dewberry & Davis, LLC, described this project as a walkable village and he described what living in the community would be like for its residents. He pointed out the central green area with its pedestrian walkways, a pond, and village shops and restaurants. He described the various housing types, the community center, and pool facilities. Mr. Brown described the commercial area as predominantly retail, second -story office, and restaurants; he said it would not be a grocery store, strip -mall center. Commissioner Ours believed that the majority of the residents would be wanting to get to Route 66 or I-81 and he had concerns about the transportation issues and especially Warrior Drive. Mr. Ours liked Mr. Foote's suggestion of possibly forming a CDA (community development authority) in order to guarantee the completion of Warrior Drive. From a transportation aspect, he believed the completion of Warrior Drive was critical for this project to work. Furthermore, Mr. Ours was not convinced that if this project was built out before Crosspointe, that Tasker and Warrior Drive could still function at a LOS C. Mr. John Callow, transportation analyst with PHR&A, said the supplemental study was done with full build -out background traffic, which is a completed Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe,. and with the full 905 dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of commercial. He said the analysis resulted in an overall LOS C, using the identical procedures as with the previously -approved TIA. He recognized that issues still exist, but he pointed out all the other projects along Tasker Road that will be adding their share in improving Tasker Road Commissioner Thomas had questions concerning the applicant's proffer on the creation of homeowners' and property owners' associations. Commissioner Thomas asked for an explanation of how the applicant was going to subdivide the jurisdiction and maintenance of the common areas, the central core area, and the pond between the commercial and the residential HOAs and if there will be multiple residential HOAs for the different housing types. Mr. Foote replied that since those restrictive covenants and conditions have not yet been drafted, he could not answer in specific detail; however, as a general rule, they create multiple homeowners associations for developments like this because each neighborhood has its own interest and responsibility. He said that an umbrella HOA would be established and is specifically assigned responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, and similar matters that affect the entire community. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2005 IF 7 Page 1581 ME Chairman DeHaven hoped to avoid situations where there are adjoining HOAs, but one HOA does not have the basis to enforce the requirements of the neighboring HOA, even though that is their view. Mr. Foote said this was the purpose of the umbrella HOA. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that in sections of the transportation proffer, the wording specifically states that roads will be "designed" to VDOT standards, while other sections state the roads shall be "constructed" to VDOT standards. Commissioner Thomas asked if the applicant would state that roads will be "designed and constructed" to VDOT standards throughout the document. Mr. Foote said they would be willing to change the wording; he noted that this development will have both public and private streets. Mr. Brown came forward and pointed out which roads are intended to be public and which would be private. He said the private roads consist of the internal roads and alley -ways in the various village communities and will be the responsibility of the HOAs for snow removal and maintenance. Mr. Brown added that this neo -traditional design for the public street network is only possible with VDOT's new public street guidelines. Commissioner Gochenour spoke with the applicant about the possible impacts to the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County, if the evolving regulations regarding nutrient reduction regulations, promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program, are put into effect. Also discussed was the upgrade needed for the Parkins Mill treatment plant. Commissioner Gochenour also spoke with the applicant about the issues involving a sustainable water source in Frederick County. Mr. Charles Segerman, with the Tower Companies, spoke about the design concept used to make this a live -work -play facility where residents could leave their cars parked. He said the density modification will not only enable the affordable housing, but it will allow them to reduce the site footprint, thereby allowing the provision of a school site, Warrior Drive, the tree -save area, and the other amenities of the development. He speculated that the residential units would sell for $100,000 to $500,000. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that this is only a village concept if Warrior Drive is built through and connects with Rt. 37, or eventually to I-81, the 118,500 square feet of commercial is built, and a school site is provided. He said that if those things do not happen, this project is just another high-density housing development. Commissioner Thomas recognized this was a three -phased development, but he said there was no time -line associated with it and no commitment that until Warrior Drive is built through and the commercial is built, that the developer will cap the number of houses. Commissioner Ours believed timing was the issue here; he said the project would be much more amenable if the timing could somehow be tied to the development of Warrior Drive. Commissioner Ours said that the third phase should not be constructed until Warrior Drive is complete in its entirety to Rt. 37/1-8 1. Mr. Foote said they would be willing to consider and work on these issues. Board Liaison Barbara Van Osten inquired why the applicant considered it necessary to construct,600 units of residential before initiating Warrior Drive and the commercial development. Mr. Segerman replied that two-thirds of Warrior Drive will be built by the end of Phase 2 and it will be constructed in sections as one moves into the development. Mr. Segerman said that their traffic needs are really for only one lane of Warrior Drive in each direction; however, the staff has stated they wanted two lanes in each direction. Mr. Segerman said there are economics associated with that request and, therefore, a critical mass of housing needs to go along with the road improvements. He said that the number of houses and the length of Warrior Drive constructed pretty much walk together. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1582 Minutes of August 3, 2005 0 am Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Keith Wingfield, adjoining property owner at 103 Fairlawn Courtin Lakewood Manor, was pleased with the proposal presented by the applicants. Mr. Wingfield expressed a concern, however, about the water and sewer and he pointed out the location of a pumping station for the Sanitation Authority. Mr. Wingfield said that if Warrior Drive or Parkins Mill is not constructed, the floodgates will be open for traffic coming down Lakeside Drive and through the access right-of-way, which was located only two lots away from him. He said that Lakewood Manor was a quiet neighborhood and doesn't have a lot of through traffic. Mr. Wingfield thought this would be a good development, if it materialized in the manner presented. Mr. Wingfield said the applicant has provided land for a school, but the County still has to fund the school; he said the water and sewer still had to be funded. Mr. Tim Elliott, adjoining properly owner at 105 Fairlawn Court, commented how beautiful the property was and that it contained considerable wildlife. He mentioned a beautiful evergreen tree with a dual trunk and said he would not be surprised if it was alive during Civil War times. Mr. Elliott said the tree was a monument to the property and he hoped that somehow it could remain undisturbed. Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Ours asked about the LOS that will exist at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road if this project turns out to be a 900 -unit housing development and how soon during the process will it become necessary to signalize the intersection. Mr. Ingram predicted a signal would be installed before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr. Ingram said that during the analysis of the initial plans of the cross section of Warrior Drive through there, a four - lane paved section could not be justified with the business that was anticipated; but once the connection was made into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased to 8,000 additional trips. Mr. Ingram said the applicant provided the entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips. He said that basically, the commercial could not be justified without those additional trips from Crosspointe. Commission members wanted to provide the applicants with additional time to work out the concerns the Planning Commission had raised. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend the tabling of Rezoning #12-05 and Master Development Plan #09-05 for the Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry & Davis, LLC, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community District) for a period of 60 days to allow the developer time to work out with the staff the comments made by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #10-05 of Stonewall Plaza, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a shopping center and retail uses along the Route 522 Corridor, next to the existing Trex Center and the Darville subdivision in Sunnyside. This property is identified with P.I.N. 42 -A -198H in the Stonewall District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1583 Minutes of August 3, 2005 nD, -10 - Action — Recommended Approval Plammer Candice E. Perkins reported that the preliminary master development plan (MDP) for Stonewall Plaza is a proposal to develop approximately 21.9 acres of B2 (Business General) -zoned property with a shopping center and retail land uses. Ms. Perkins noted that this property was depicted as being zoned D2 on the original zoning maps for Frederick County and, therefore, does riot have proffers associated with it. She said that access to the site is proposed via one commercial entrance off North Frederick Pike, across from Westminster Canterbury Drive, which is currently an unsignalized cross-over. She said the proposed development calls for the installation of a new traffic signal at this entrance. Ms. Perkins recommended that a note be provided on the MDP stating that signalization will be operational before the first Certificate of Occupancy is provided on the site. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, the representative for Stonewall Plaza, proceeded to review the transportation improvements recommended in their traffic study in order to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) "C" for this area. Those improvements included: a traffic signal that aligns with Westminster - Canterbury Drive which will be fully funded and constructed by the developer; widening of the existing median cross-over; a second left -turn lane to be constructed on Rt. 522 in conjunction with their crossover and expanding the existing left -turn lane; providing a continuous right -turn lane for access into the site, plus a right -tum lane out of the project, which ties into Exeter Drive. Mr. Wyatt next described two opportunities for the applicant to provide and construct inter - parcel connections. The first would be a vehicular connection between the proposed shopping center and the existing office complex area without having to get out onto Rt. 522. The second was a pedestrian access between the shopping center area and the adjacent residential subdivision on Clarke -Ville Road. Commissioners asked about the possibility of providing a vehicular connection to the adjacent residential subdivision, instead of simply a pedestrian connection, so those residents would not have to drive out onto Route 522 to access a grocery store. Mr. Wyatt thought the grade differential between the two properties would not allow for the vehicular connection. Commissioners next discussed the storm water run-off with the applicant. It was noted by the applicant that a 15 -acre drainage shed, originating on the other side of Rt. 37, flows through this site, accepts the run-off, and eventually channels it to the storm system on Rt. 522. Chairman DeHaven suggested to the applicant that, in addition to enlarging the culverts, the applicant might possibly assist with the on-going drainage problem that occurs as runoff comes across the median and floods down through to the Strowbridge property. Commissioner Straub suggested the applicant use an aesthetically -pleasing exterior design so the structures don't resemble a strip mall. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Nancy Crim, adjoining property owner and a resident of Darville Subdivision since 1966, spoke about how this area has grown over the years; she was very concerned about the amount and speed of traffic traveling on Route 522 and the problems she experiences associated with it. Ms. Crim thought the vehicular access to the proposed site was a good idea because of the problems she experiences trying to get out onto Rt. 522 during certain times of the day. She said she was not opposed to the development proposed, but she thought the development's loop road was too close to her home as well as the other houses in her neighborhood. Ms. Crim raised the issue of who would be responsible for the maintenance of the trees and fence in the buffer Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1584 Minutes of August 3, 2005 DLI 0 M V T -11 - area over time. In addition, she was concerned about the commercial lighting shining into her home. Mr. Douglas Kramer, adjoining property owner, said his primary objection was the loop road being so close to his property. In addition, he said the drainage in this area is terrible and storm water washes down Clarke -Ville Road, creating a gulley. He preferred not to have the pedestrian/ vehicular inter -parcel access. Ms. Ann Cunningham, adjoining property owner, was also opposed to an access road or walkway adjacent to her property because of the possibility of strangers trespassing onto her property. Ms. Sherella Kramer, adjoining property owner, was concerned about the how the commercial lighting and noise would impact her quality of life. Ms. Kramer was not in favor of having an access to the commercial property because of the possibility of outsiders coming into the neighborhood. Since everyone who had wanted to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium and stated that if the neighbors do not want the inter -parcel connection, they will certainly eliminate it. Mr. Wyatt said that the county's lighting standards and buffering requirements will be met. Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Wilmot, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 410-05 of Stonewall Plaza, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a shopping center and retail uses along the Route 522 Corridor, next to the existing Trex Center and the Darville subdivision in Sunnyside. (Note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. due to the Planning Cominission's By -Laws requirement. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2005 WmllE� Page 1585 • 0 0 COUNTY of FRE=DERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director�' SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Government Services in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District DATE: August 24, 2005 Staff continues to work toward securing appropriate locations to accommodate the various governmental facilities that have expressed interest in relocating to Frederick County. These facilities could include aspects of office, warehouse, and armory uses. In reviewing the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, staff feels that these various government service uses would be appropriated located within the designated Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as the SWSA is that area of the County deemed suitable for commercial uses. The various governmental facilities are most appropriately classified in a fashion similar to commercial uses. As such, staff has drafted a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that, if adopted, would accommodate the government services use as a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, so long as specific performance standards are achieved. These standards reflect the requirements associated with commercial development: use of public water and sewer facilities; improved road networks to accommodate traffic generated from the proposed use; and buffer and parking lot design. A definition of the Government Services Use has also been proposed. These proposed amendments have been scheduled for public hearing consideration at the Planning Commission's September 7, 2005. Attached is the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Please contact staff with questions regarding this proposed amendment. Following the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Commission for forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Attachment: Proposed ordinance amendments IL07 North Kent Street, Senate 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-S0®0 DRAFT (with staff notes) Existing Ordinance: Section 165-50 BB. Local government services office (Enables the by -right use in the RA) Section 165-156. Definitions and word usage Local Government Services Office - Offices or facilities owned, leased, or operated by local government agencies for services to the public in general. (Defines the use) Proposed Amendment: Section 165-50 BB. Government services office (Enables the by -right use in the RA) Section 165-48.10. Government Services Office Government Services Office located in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District shall be subject to the following requirements: A. Government Services Office uses shall be located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as identified by the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. B. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be conducted, and the improvements identified as necessary to achieve, or maintain, a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C shall be constructed in conjunction with the facilities. C. The facility shall be served by public water and sewer. D. The use and site shall adhere to, and implement, Business General (132) Zoning District design standards. (Establishes performance standards targeted at mitigating impacts on surroundings) Section 165-156. Definitions and word usage Government Services Office - Offices or facilities owned, leased, or operated by government agencies for government services. See "School" for school use. (Redefines the expanded governmental use) Revised August 19, 2005 Proposed Amendment: Section 165-50 BB. Government services office Section 165-48.10. Government Services Office Government Services Office located in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District shall be subject to the following requirements: E. Government Services Office uses shall be located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as identified by the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. F. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be conducted, and the improvements identified as necessary to achieve, or maintain, a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C shall be constructed in conjunction with the facilities. G. The facility shall be served by public water and sewer. H. The use and site shall adhere to, and implement, Business General (132) Zoning District design standards. Section 165-156. Definitions and word usage Government Services Office - Offices or facilities owned, leased, or operated by government agencies for government services. See "School" for school use. REZONING APPLICATION 913-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 09/07/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/28/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -15B and 43-A-16 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M 1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential & Agriculture Rezoning #13-05 — Russell- Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 130 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised August 4, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The proposed rezoning is within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage. Based on available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1). These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. Off-site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near property lines. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The closest existing citizens convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new developments. We are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No conunent. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the request Rezoning #13-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 3 as stated so long as public water and sewer are utilized. No private septic system may be used (drain elds). No neighboring wells or drainfields are to be negatively impacted and if they should be impacted, the Health Dept. will rescind its agreement to the request. Staff Note: The portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Reeional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement subject to the following: 1. Paragraph 1.2: Is this development to be limited to any particular type of single —family detached building types, or its it to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? It is is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2.1: I don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. 3. Paragraph 4.1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should be specified. For example would those units be designated at the time of subdivision? 4. Paragraph 12.1: It should be noted that the inflation adjustment calculation provides for the cap of 6% per year to be non -compounded. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are Rezoning #13-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 4 no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcel 43-A-16 was rezoned to A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition 4003-78). Parcel 43 -A -15B was re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re - mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2002, parcels 43-A-1 5A, 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were subdivided to form a rural preservation subdivision (Glendobbin Ridge). 16 parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres were created. A 40% set-aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) was created. As per section 165-54D (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this parcel cannot be further subdivided. However, Section 165-54D (3) states: Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty percent parcel and following a public hearing the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or included within the UDA as a result of future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten year restriction on rezoning. Therefore, a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning request. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Rezoning #13-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 5 Land Use The subject sites are within the Urban Development Area (UDA). All of parcel 43-A-16 and a portion of parcel 43 -A -15B are within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The sites have no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the properties do not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision recently bought their lots with the expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zone RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5 -acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between industrial and low- density residential uses. In addition, RP zoning on the subject properties would have implications for the adjacent industrial properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Rezoning 413-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 6 The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. The applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right of way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state how much of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. The location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer will be identified at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. Staff note: Should this rezoning be approved, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would alleviate any flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Any variation in the route at the final engineering stage would require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial site, further impacting this established industrial park. 3) Site SuitabilitvXnvironment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subj ect parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. StaffNote: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7t' Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. The TIA does not model whether traffic will exit the development from a new road on site or from Union View Lane. Rezoning 413-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 AarrP 7 s� Local Roads The applicant is proposing two entrances for this development. One new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. The second proposed access is through an existing private access easement which would connect the new development to Union View Road. Union View Road at this time is not a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Road, although it is intended to be a VDOT Road. Union View Lane currently ends as a cul-de-sac. The applicant would need to work with VDOT to insure a safely engineered connection with Union View Lane. It is unclear if the applicant has the authority to connect a state road to Union View Lane via a private access easement. However, while staff generally encourages inter -parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. An inter -parcel connector is only required between adjacent RP zoned properties, not between RP and RA properties (Section 165-48.9). Further to this point however, the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department commented that "Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access". Should the connection with Union View Lane not be possible, the applicant would, at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage, need to obtain a subdivision waiver, as the length of the cul-de-sac would be approximately 1,800 feet. (A waiver is required if the length of the cul-de- sac is over 1,000 feet.) As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. This includes the new entrance to the subject parcels which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. B. Sewer and Water The site will be served by a gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the applicant within the Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an 8 inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. Rezoning #13-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 8 As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated May 1, 2005. This GDP shows (1) an interconnection with Union View Lane and (2) right of way dedication for Route 37. Staff note: The applicant has not proved to the satisfaction of staff that Union View Lane can be connected to the proposed development with a public road. If the applicant is unable to construct a public road connection, then the GDP would be in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance and is therefore not ripe for consideration. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 130 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan which would allow building permits for no more than 60 dwelling units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation The applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. As stated above, the applicant has proffered an interconnection with Union View Lane. As noted previously, the applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right of way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Rezoning #13-05 — Russell-Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 9 Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). D) MonetM Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/07/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two recommendations are required with this application. A recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the waiver request. Denial of the waiver request would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a recommendation of denial for the rezoning. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the connection to Union View Lane can be accomplished in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site will be required for the future Route 37. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation_ by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application and waiver request would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUM FIBURCK • Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 23, 2005 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property Dear Chuck: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Russell- Glendobbin Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Procedure. The subject property is in the Urban Development Area (UDA), therefore the applicant is eligible to seek a Board waiver of the division restriction on the set-aside (40% parcel) of the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. As per Sectionl65-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this is accomplished through a rezoning, following a public hearing. Procedurally, the Board waiver and the rezoning would take place at the same public hearing. 2. Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the draft application, the subject properties are in the UDA and partially in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). I would point out that no portion of the subject sites are designated for residential use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. Since this site is not in an area designated for residential development, it is not clear how the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, Section l65 -54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that a rezoning covering a preservation parcel will only be granted if the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Surrounding Area. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision bought their lots with the clear expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west are five -acre lots, which have yet to be developed. In fact, most subdivisions along 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. Also critical is the fact that the parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use. While the Comprehensive Plan seeks to separate industrial uses from residential uses, this proposal would considerably increase the number of residences, and thus residents, directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. Furthermore, it appears that the proposal is advocating using a large number of new residents as a buffer between industrial and low-density residential uses. The set-aside parcel currently serves as a very satisfactory buffer. 4. Sewer and Water. Only part of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) and thus eligible for water and sewer service. S. Buffer. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance only requires a Category A Buffer between new RP and an existing MI Districts. The applicant should consider enhancements to the required buffer, such as that required when new Ml locates next to existing RP. 6. Route 37. The GDP shows the future Route 37 and a proffer indicates the right-of- way for Route 37 would be dedicated to the County at no cost. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers and screening between the residential parcels and Route 37, which would be a major arterial road. The applicant may want to consider enhancements to the required buffer and screening. Also note that the alignment of Route 37 is at present not precise, and may impact more of the site than that shown on your plans. 7. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. 8. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 9. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 10. Adjacent parcels. The list of adjoining properties should include 43-A-19 and 43- 1-21. Also, ownership of parcel 43-20-3 has changed. Verify ownerships before the actual application is submitted. Page 3 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 11. Proposed Proffer Statement (Including Generalized Development Plan). A. Page 3 of the applications states the application is for 125 units. The proffer statement (1.1) states a maximum of 130 units. Please insure consistent numbers. B. Proffer 2.1 refers to the Butcher rezoning. Please correct. C. Proffer 3.1 states a contribution to the Board for fire and rescue in the amount of $889.00 per dwelling unit. This is not consistent with the amount listed on page 6 of 6 in the impact assessment. D. Proffer 4.1 mentions units designated as "age restricted". This is not explained in the application. Please address. E. Proffer 11.1 states the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Specify the improvements and the timing of those improvements. F. Proffer 11.2 calls for a connection between the internal road network for the project and Glendobbin Ridge Road. Please be more specific on the details of this connection and the timing of the connection. 12. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency cormnents from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Plaruung Department. 13. Virginia Department of Transportation. I have received an email from Lloyd Ingram at VDOT stating that VDOT was not satisfied with the transportation proffers. VDOT's concerns will need to be addressed before this application is submitted. 14. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $9,823 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 15. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Page 4 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 All of the above comments and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment OUTPUT MOuULE APPLICANT: Russell-Glendobbi LAND USE TYPE RP REAL EST VAL $17,043,000 FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriff's Offices Administration Building I Other Miscellaneous Facilities SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT n Net Fiscal Impact Costs of Impact Credit: Required (entered in Capital Facilities col sum only) $63,567 $557,399 $327,887 $480,680 $199,550 $34,692 $20,532 $26,349 $33,616 $1,744,271 $0 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $63,567 $489 $91,202 $442,730 $533,932 $381,727 $984,238 $7,571 $44,972 $44,972 $32,152 $167,398 $1,288 $9,702 $9,702 $6,937 $27,755 $213 $16,823 $0 $4,193 $21,016 $15,025 $5,506 $42 $0 $0 $0 $26,349 $203 $32,417 $35,790 $68,207 $48,764 $0 $0 $140,442 $478,520 $58,868 $677,830 $484,605 $1,259,666 $9,690 $0 $0 $00 $0 $1,259,666 1 $9,690 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg ---------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $63,567 $489 $91,202 $442,730 $533,932 $381,727 $984,238 $7,571 $44,972 $44,972 $32,152 $167,398 $1,288 $9,702 $9,702 $6,937 $27,755 $213 $16,823 $0 $4,193 $21,016 $15,025 $5,506 $42 $0 $0 $0 $26,349 $203 $32,417 $35,790 $68,207 $48,764 $0 $0 $140,442 $478,520 $58,868 $677,830 $484,605 $1,259,666 $9,690 $0 $0 $00 $0 $1,259,666 1 $9,690 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg ---------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg ---------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 Glendobbin 0 250 500 1,000 Feet /1/ Bridges �ApProasoa Culverts Lakes/Ponds Dams w®- Streams ^:/ Retaining Walls Buildings Road Centerlines Tanks Trails Glendobbin 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ..Y MARSHALL MILLS 43 8352 MARSHALL MILLS MARSHALL MILLS 43 S3 d5 dJ 834d Map Features DONOVAN /\/ Bridges 077 RICHAROS .. 43 17 3 S KUCH, Agrlculturaf IS Forestal Districts ` •^• Streams ^/ Retaining Wall. �i Double Church N11; 42 9 3 SCHNEIDER 12 A 262D 42 234 3 "� Q 43 173 4 1• �. Scufh Frederick 1 +y 43 XOLSINGER S C 62 9 t7 P�14 per dOyA, :- RITTER 43 173 2 ( PU � SFR f1 •j'i4� 876 Pz t SON PI J e`nV�� ca 1,� (1 ev� CN 3 ry 5 0.EN 1 ✓06 11 Pz b4( f� WaTE N F a o « {3 CARTER Q225 25 M OWEN 02 A 282A R q y� 43 173 E 1 4J 1] 1 i qt m Y 9 G T RUSSELL O 2 qo U A 156 Al "Aoqti �N G `p^ 11 MAR-TE,LER 1 42 1! 21 , _ 4 Sl e I, w v a„ C o oay6R ti cg ry » le ITNOMPSON 42 IS4 TS ' HENDERSON N� 63 26 14 K+ FISHER d2 1.314 tN�ys / P .e Zp�s�p9p61 'I oZi mgfm PERDUE RD m tt•�aOS A'S ,{p 1 GqG ✓ w MPµSNPg 4M53`5 �o ill JSHg4NlLCS �a PSS �6 MARSHA MILLS 41 944 5. lmmr Ciq.Camp�r cci3 U9 411 121C1] MARSHALL MILLS 1q 2 SSOSs'M1 SFP6A9 }1 6 SWIGER 6 MARSHA43 Ll MILLS d3 9d 55 04 66 42 1S 21R6LE — RUSSELL 43 A 16 42 iB 1u m MARSHALL MILLS LOUTHAN O .I'D 42 16 5v 1j/ 1S MARSH 94L U1tL8 43 6467 yY 'QRS dl HOCKMAN,'1 K(S ZP MARSHALL MILLS 41 i6 4 S( MARSHALL MILLS 43 94 68 43 94 53 PETERSON g ^ x d1 16 3l <FY u I'ISIL(S MARSHALLMILLS " 43 94M f^ 41 i =a IOMPSON a 9't 42116 9,f MARSHALL MILLS 42 121 2I ..Y MARSHALL MILLS 43 8352 MARSHALL MILLS MARSHALL MILLS 43 S3 d5 dJ 834d Map Features /\/ Bridges �/!��I Application ^/ CcI-ft l,.. I Parcels Lakes/Ponds /V Dams Agrlculturaf IS Forestal Districts ` •^• Streams ^/ Retaining Wall. �i Double Church Buildings Road Centerlines Refuge Church Tanks "AO 1• �. Scufh Frederick -\i Trail. I — I • I • P P� qyS • • • BHS ♦ • 43 A 11 REZ # 13 - 05 N Russell - Glendobbin W E (43-A-1513, 16) S 0 250 500 1,000 Feet MC OWN 43 A 15 p S' ♦`♦ Urban Development Area 52 • obh"' Rd A. t • K Subject Property x - I •37 _ w Map Features REZ # 13- 05 N Rt" Bypass La'"shonPa-s Russell - Glendobbin Lakes/Ponds Road Centerlines N �•- Streams 0--- TanBuiiks Bs N' �•° U°A Tralls WE (43 - A -15E, 16 ) S 0 7501,500 3,000 Feet 7iabbr Nun�Ln �I 1 /tom �O 'C 11'ooit;'rdr F't � 'T A. Map Features REZ # 13 - 05 ®�p�fcation <'%Z`;1 Rt 37 Bypass �I�' parcels 0,Llkes/Ronds Road Centerlines aSWBA Russell - N Glendobbin w-• St.— Buildings ti i•; �UDA ••-, Trails • WE' (43 - A -15B' 16 ) i Tanks S 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMEN 1 REZONING: RZ• # RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 67.7242 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43-A 15B & 43-A 16 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 REVISION DATE (S): August 4, 2005 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors m interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Russell-Glendobbin Property" dated May 1, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 130 single family detached dwelling units. 1.2 The project shall develop solely with single family detached residential uses. The minimum lot size for said uses shall be 15,000 square feet. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE Or PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Russell-Glendobbin Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. 2.2 The project shall be developed pursuant to an annualized phasing plan. Building permits for no more than 60 dwelling units shall be issued within any twelve (12) month period, beginning from the date of rezoning approval. 3. FIRE & RESCUE: 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $42.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $203.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. WATER & SEWER- 9.1 EWER 9.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 10. ENVIRONMEN i: 10.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 11. TRANSPORTATION: 11.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled, "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Russell-Glendobbin Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc, dated May 4, 2005 (the "TIN'). The Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. 11.2 The Applicant shall provide a connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50 -foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane. (See 1 on GDP) 11.3 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 2 on GDP) 11.4 The Applicant shall place the amount of $300.00 per dwelling unit in an escrow account for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Such funds shall be escrowed at the time of building permit issuance for each residential unit, and shall be released to the County within 90 days of a written request by the County. 12. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U') published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, Glen W. Russell Title: Pamela L. Russell Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: Ac The foregoing instrumexx�' ,,,y�as ackno d ed , jefore e this i' day { 2005, b &&t4 �d�• �i�/ �.�•�� I�� •f � Y My cornmissi NotaryPublic Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement RUSSELL — GLENDOBBIN PROPERTY REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT August 2005 A. INTRODUCTION The 67.7242 acre Russell—Glendobbin property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County, with the majority of the acreage also within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is located adjacent to the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision created by the applicant that is currently developing with single family detached units on 2 -acre lots. The proposed development of the Russell—Glendobbin property will provide a transition from the more intensive land uses within Stonewall Industrial Park to the low density residential development pattern that extends north and west from this area. Approximately 37 acres of the site are platted as the preservation parcel of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This acreage is normally reserved exclusively for open space or agricultural uses; however, Section 165-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA from such development restrictions through the rezoning process "provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time." The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. Moreover, the integration of varying lot sizes and types will create an alternative residential development pattern that will ultimately enhance consumer choice and foster a dynamic housing market, both of which are key objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while simultaneously contributing to the regional transportation network. The single family residential land use envisioned for the site is compatible with the surrounding community and consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Page 1 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is not located within the boundaries of any small area plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and is therefore not subject to a specific planned land use designation. In the absence of such a designation, the general policies that govern the UDA and suburban residential land uses, respectively, combine to provide guidance concerning the appropriate use of the acreage. These policies stipulate that suburban residential land uses are intended to predominate inside the UDA, within which the public facilities necessary to support such uses either exist or are planned for expansion. As described in the introductory section of this report, the portion of the UDA wherein the Russel l-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached traditional lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. By introducing alternative lot sizes served by public facilities to an area of relatively low residential densities, this proposal will result in an appropriately diverse residential development pattern that will enhance consumer choice and support a vibrant land market, which the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies as desired outcomes of the UDA concept. It is noted that the UDA boundary extends well beyond the subject acreage to include the Apple Pie Ridge Road area. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that this area is included in the UDA due to its prevailing lot pattern, but that public facilities are not intended for extension to this established residential enclave. Implied by this statement is that suburban residential densities are not envisioned for the Apple Pie Ridge Road area regardless of its location within the UDA. Despite its proximity to the Apple Pie Ridge Road area, the use of the Russell — Glendobbin property is not similarly impacted by this unique adaptation of UDA policy. The principal factor distinguishing the site is the location of the majority of its acreage not only within the UDA, but also the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). As such, public water and sewer facilities may clearly be extended to the site thereby assuring its capacity to develop with the residential densities envisioned within the UDA. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Page 2 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Site Background and History Impact Analysis Statement The Russell-Glendobbin property consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.5389 acres (Parcel A) in size and the other 31.1853 acres (Parcel B). The entire area of the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Parcel A is the preservation parcel ("40% parcel") of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision totaling sixteen lots that was approved by Frederick County in 2002. Parcel A is situated at the south end of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision adjacent to Stonewall Industrial Park. Parcel B extends north from Parcel A to Glendobbin Road, and is immediately east and adjacent to lots 3 through 16 of Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. It is important to note that the acreage comprising the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was located within the UDA at the time of subdivision approval. Moreover, the majority of the acreage is situated within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), which confirms its eligibility for service with public water and sewer facilities. B. Location and Access The Russell—Glendobbin property consists of 67.7242 acres of land located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663), within the Stonewall Magisterial District. The site is adjacent to the currently developing Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, and is accessible directly from Glendobbin Road. Primary project access will occur through an entrance on Glendobbin Road. A secondary point of access will be established by an extension and inter- connection with Union View Lane within the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. C. Site Suitability The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Page 3 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement Environmental Features Total Project Area A7 79A9 Acres i Area in Flood Plain 0.00 Acres 0% Area in Steep Slopes 0.00 Acres 0% Area in Wetlands 0.00 Acres 0% Lakes & Ponds 0.00 Acres 0% The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick- Poplimento loams, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C), as shown on map sheet number 24 of the survey. This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. D. Traffic A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. (see Figure 9, A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin, dated May 4, 2005) From a regional perspective, the planned path of VA Route 37 shown on the Eastern Road Plan crosses the southeast corner of the property. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate this area to Frederick County to ensure protection of the right of way necessary for future construction of this roadway. E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply The site will be served by adequately sized gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the Applicant within Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. There are no identified issues with the gravity connection of sewer to the existing Stonewall Industrial Park sewer system. Approximately 316,000 square feet (7.2 acres) of the site resides outside of the SWSA. This portion of the property could be developed with the Single-family detached rural traditional housing type which allows 100,000 square foot lots, without public sewer and water. Necessary road construction across this area to Page 4 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement serve the remainder of the site would limit the number of dwellings on private health systems and water supply to a maximum of two. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an 8 inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. A maximum of 130 single family detached homes will be served by public water and sewer within the proposed development. The demand for water and discharge for sewer is therefore projected at approximately 26,000 gpd. All facilities constructed and installed on the site will meet FCSA requirements for its ultimate ownership and maintenance. F. Site Drainage Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south, as it drains to Red Bud Run. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian buffers containing mature woodlands will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Assuming maximum build -out at 130 single family detached homes, it is projected that each dwelling will produce approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of 1,560 lbs. per day (.78 T/day) for the project. Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. H. Historic Sites and Structures The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant structures on the subject 67.7242 acres or within close proximity of the properties. The subject properties are not located within the study boundary or core area of any identified Civil War battlefield. Page 5 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement I. Impact on Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run by planning staff to project the fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. The applicant has offered per unit monetary contributions with the proffer statement equivalent to the calculated impacts to mitigate the effects on Frederick County. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to contribute $10,506 per unit at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated as follows: ■ Fire and Rescue: $889.00 per unit ■ Public Schools: $7,571.00 per unit Recreation & Parks: $1,288.00 per unit ■ Library: $213.00 per unit ■ Sheriff's Office: $42.00 per unit ■ Administration: $203.00 per unit ■ Offsite Road Improvements: $300.00 per unit TOTAL: $10,506 per unit An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). Page 6 of 6 8/2005 s f- �, 44 ' Gri m e 32 '33 1i t ,b� f �t i ...,�•w� �.� f Y _may � .-.-.._... �t � r -, � � B c f / 4t !� f+.. OJ,ECT �' AREA-' ' ' �� • . ►� �k y , ,. - te0li t ort ."'...�..-----'---_•_.�,, tet,,,,",. ! b+'hl ��j. ! � +d � •-'. �� , '4 � * ■ fi 44 i. ' ✓: "'Rae,.. Gf ti +� , Nl- J •VY 21 . in f, "4 " h RUSSELL _ GLEIVDDBB/lii Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc ,``, ZONING CONTEXT 117 E Fya d* St. Wachester, Woria 22601 O a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-1}493 FREDERICK COUNTY, WROM4. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Glen W. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Ass-ociates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. LrndsccpeArchitects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 May 04, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PER+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development located to the south of Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), between Apple Pie Ridge Road (VA Route 739) and Welltown Road (VA Route 661), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of a maximum of 130 single-family detached residential units with access to be provided via a site -driveway located along the south side of Glendobbin Road. Build -out will occur over a single transportation phase by the year 2008.. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Russell-Glendobbin development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including growth rates and other planned projects in the area of impact, s Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development, v Distribution. and assignment of the Russell-Glendobbin development generated trips onto the completed study area road network, - Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS .: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11/Welltown Road, Welltown Road/Payne Road (VA Route 663), Glendobbin Road/Payne Road, Apple Pie Ridge Road/Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road/Hill Road (VA Route 673). Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were` conducted along Glendobbin Road at the approximate location of the- proposed Russell-Glendobbin site -driveway. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an average "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8% as determined from the 2003 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/FM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data ,and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A6 A Tr c fmaact Anal sis o Russell-Glendobbin T Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 1 J No Scale rl Figure I Vicinity Map: Russell-Glendobbin in Frederick County, Virginia e a A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin i Z Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 a Page 2 No Scale SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 1 A Traffic .Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project .Number: 13543-1-0' May 04, 2005 Page 3 X 26( � 26(8) (1)2 r (2)4 1)69 e c N � ~ b A 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 1 A Traffic .Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project .Number: 13543-1-0' May 04, 2005 Page 3 No Scale Unsignalized Intersection 1 Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Im act Anal sis o Russell-Glendobbin j I A e Project Number: 13543-1-0 ��` May 04, 2005 Page 4 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A applied a conservative annual growth rate of four percent (4%) to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain 2008 base conditions. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included: Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (RE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix. section of this report_ Table 1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ADT Star Fort* 210 Single -Family Detached 70 units 15 44 58 50 28 78 700 Total 15 44 .58 50 28 78 700 Regents "Crescent*, 210 Single -Family Detached 28 units 7 22 29 22 12 34 280 230 Townhouse/Condo 42 units 4 21 26 20 10 30 365 Total 12 43 55 1 42 22 64 645 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 420,000 SF 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Total 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Stephenson Village 210 Single -Family Detached 400 units 72 217 289 235 138 373 4,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 300 units 21 103 124 99 49 148 2,610 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 531 units 45 73 117 100 64 164 2,238 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 144 units 5 , 6 12 10 6 16 501 520 Elementary School 550 stud. 94 65 160 2 4 6 710 Total 1 237 465 702 445 261 706 10,059 Adjacent Residential Development (west of Russell-CAendobbiu) 210 Single -Family Detached 16 units 1 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Total 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Note: Although Star Fort and Regents Crescent are located along Route 522, the traffic generated will impact Route 11/Route 37 and therefore were included in analyses. A Tra c Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin I --E Project Number:_ 13543-1-0 --i�—�� May 04, 2005 .lL --L Page 5 Average wily Tri i AY x A Traffic ImnactAnalysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number. 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 6 No Scale 4 17A Unsi�natirP.i \ f D Denotes stop sign control Me Denotes trafDc signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Im acrA.na1 sis of Russell-Glendobbin —Ye - Project Number: 13543-1-'0 ��. May 04, 2005 D- Page 7 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7t' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development. . Table 2 Russell-Glendobbin Development Trip Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The -distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to -assign the proposed Russell--Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Russell-Glendobbin assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the . 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AMTM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All 14CS-2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or. better during 2008 build -out conditions. - A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin _ a ft � ProjectNumber: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 JL A - Page 8 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 130 units 25 75 100 87 49 136 1,300 Total 25 75 100 1 87 49 136 1 1,300 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The -distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to -assign the proposed Russell--Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Russell-Glendobbin assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the . 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AMTM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All 14CS-2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or. better during 2008 build -out conditions. - A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin _ a ft � ProjectNumber: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 JL A - Page 8 No Scale -I- Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell GZendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 9 No Scale q; SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments m ; n A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 A Page 10 No Scale goa` Q 711'1�1 �Ln o Rad wl� (6)2 b A SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) s A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell Glendobbin P Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 11 Ifif, No Scale r V71 UnsignalizedY Intersection 9 .L41 I� Unsignalized Intersection SITE Signalised Intersection *kr L( S=B(B) SCJ Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin - Project Number: 13543-1-0 a May 04, 2005 j1 Page 12 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To he copi91eted lav Planning Surf :. Fee Arnotmt Paid Zoning Artiondment Number Date Received � PC Hearin; date BCS Hea ing Date ry The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Telephone: 540-662-7083 Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester. VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-21 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped RP -Single Family Detached ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663). 2 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 43-A-1513 & 43-A-16 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Stonewall Clearbrook Clearbrook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: James Wood James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 67.73 RA RP 67.73 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 130 Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I-/ Applicant(s) Date `*-C.�M,-4dox, r., E. SeniorP Patton Harris Rust & Associat , pc � Owner(s) �� , Date �-�� -• Glen W. Russell Date Pamela L. Russell 4 ADJ011\ ERS RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-13 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-14 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-11 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (Ml) P.O. Box 1657 Property #: 43-19-2 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-73 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-72 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-70 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-68 Winchester, VA 22602 5 Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-67 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-66 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-64 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Harley E. & Roxanne L. Ostlund 1950 Kathy Court Property #: 43-20-15 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Glen W. & Pamela L. Russell r 270 Panarama Drive Property #: 43-20-16 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-13 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-10 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-9 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-7 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-6 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-5 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: Ralph A. & Theresa K. Kaiser 6029 Sumner Road Property #: 43-20-4 Alexandria, VA 22310 Name: Rosanna Mateo 13554 Shardlow Ct Property #: 43-20-3 Bristow, VA 20136 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-12-3-18 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-12-3-1 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: James Peyton Darlington Trust 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-A-19 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Cheryl Grimm Morris P.O. Box 2802 Property #: 43-A-21 Winchester, VA 22604 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.vans Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell (Phone) 662-7083 (Address) 270 Panarama Drive, Winchester 22603 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number(s) 040026114 and 030000473 and is described as Parcels: 15B, 16 Lot: Block:_A Section/Tax Map: 43 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) PHRA — Charles, E. Maddox, Jr., (Phone) 667-2139 (Address) 117E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester _ Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. _ In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this `�� day of ;� 200 J , Signature(s State of irginia, City/County of � G__ z�r c �C To -wit: "g en a I,Ya Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally Wared before me and has owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _ ,* / day o' 200 57 s My Commission Expires: €s`+ '� 0 tary Public 'HIS IS CERTIFY THAT ON DEC. ?, 2004 dAT I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY -OF THE PREMISES SHOWN 40 Y. PERCENT RESERVE P`PCEL IEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO GLEN008BIN R1D6E 'BASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS IISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER N 68104'59"W 313.40' PHAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. SRF USI CHIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOG ` G SONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING -' 3S SHOWN ON FIRM MAP 510063 0105E N (8'38'54"W � EFFECTIVE JULY 1� 191-7 o 1-3 N I611316 -E L4 N 80'2011-W L5 N t5'58'2,9"E O J m 'n In w N O a w O � _ M LLL ? to ulT h ti \O 40 U ; 04 L ui F- T a: d 2 W J R w m n z Q W Z JIRS! CORNER 370NE WALL 31.1851 RC. FOS7 0 r- uJ z F-0 fl n J Of Z 03 Z W o � J POST O P03T J v r- 0 J LINE TABLE Ll N (8'38'54"W LZ 5 74'40'02"E 1-3 N I611316 -E L4 N 80'2011-W L5 N t5'58'2,9"E O W 168.57' 3 9.0 Z' 4T? -.Z1' 3 9.95' 373.55' TAX MAP ID; 43-A-15lPOR11, DEED REF. NB .80 P. 700 DAY10 AA- RMSTOW NO. 1455 I z- 2- o � tit) c� �crlEt�✓ S - L4 P05T POST F-' O • ddti a � J o J �� ° tio• x BOUNDARY 5URVE' LAND OF t� 'otic BETTY G. MCKC STONEWRLL DISTRICT o ti FREDERICK COUNTY, VIR[ 3 QP R STENAU SURVEY NG (540) 662-9323 DATE' DEC. 2, Z 0 0 4 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET SCALE: 1" = 3 0 0' WNCIiESTER, VMGMA 22601 w.o. o�zl co Z7 ';3-4-21 �- R4 4 W sGi�CUL rU �s R ala T O • �6 o 0 DA 1D M. FUnTWU ri NO. 1455 m ro (q � m ryp SURV�� n 0 m m N r4 �^ z lot 73 43-9-73 RA VACANT 3 67.41'17" E The proposed private dries/rood I5 not bulk ecmding to sheat 4mificstlons of and WIN not ba maintained by, the Virginia Department of 7hnopottallon or Froftrlck Cou". The Imprms- ment and maintensntO of saki driveway/road shelf be the sole respons►biity of the oyvr m of lots which ars prodded with access via the driyaway/road. Sold driveway/roods will not ba - considered for Inckraion IMo the state secondary system until they most the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Dapertmant of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/road to 11cccPWQ standards shell not be barns by the Virginia 0epartmant of %n9port8li0n nor by Frederick County. FINAL PLAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SPRING VALLEY SUED. SECTION 4 ` ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA SHALL MILLS INC. lot 72 RA i lot 71 RA lot 70 RA 1 '43-9-72 VACANT 43-9-71 VACAN� VACANT ;a --N 68001'07"u 1519.94' -_` 43-9-70 a roz W W 1 5p' i}Rl LA U � a r o ►r1 > • 40 '/o RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED r PER SECTION 165-54D OF THE . F=REDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) �r 31 G1 � u � E x 20o tllap ry�. MCKOWN 43-A-15 RA VACANT S 68009'59"E I LOT 16 LOT 15 0 rey 10/10.`02 Z a U Q Dppose the Rezoning of Glendobbin Road Subject: Oppose the Rezoning of Glendobbin Road Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:48:12 EDT From: Lclassic550@aol.com To: seddy@co.frederick.va.us Ms. Eddy, As a current resident, tax payer, and voter of Frederick county I wish to express my opposition of the proposed rezoning of Glendobbin Road to support 130 additional homes. The following issues come immediately to mind: Glendobbin Road, Applepie Ridge Road, and Welltown Pike are already congested. It is currently difficult to exit the area via the above mentioned roads with the houses already in existence and the businesses in the surrounding area; and school is not presently in session. The road system in the area will not support the additional traffic estimate of 1300 vehicle trips per day ( and I question that estimate). The traffic situation will get worse once school is back in session. In addition, the industrial park, the traffic to and from the industrial park off of Welltown Road and Route 11 is congested and dangerous enough. Was this or has this been considered? Will Frederick County be responsible for the road up grades necessary to support the additional housing? Who will pay for the road upgrades necessary to support such a development? You and I! This means a tax increase to support someone else's development. If the houses are built, what impact will it have on the garbage disposal site located by the Virginia Farmers Market (Indian Hollow Rd)? An increase in garbage disposal will mean an increase in disposal requirement by the Indian Hollow Road site. Who will pay for this increased tonnage of garbage being disposed of at this site? You and I! In addition, will the site even handle the additional tonnage rate? If not, more money (taxes) will go toward enlarging the site or usage fees may be imposed on you and I. Water - How will the housing project support the family dwellings with water? If all the homes are to have there own well systems; what impact will this have on the aqueduct system currently supporting the needs of you and I? However, if the county recommends a county or city water system be installed guess who pays for installing the system; You and I via tax dollars. What effect will this have on the environment? Think of the apple farms just below and surrounding the housing development. The run off from the lawn fertilizers will have an impact on the orchards. How about the reverse effect. What effect will the farmers have on the families? The farmers have to treat their crops by spraying pesticides. Who will complain about the environmental impact then? The new residences. Would this be healthy? No. It will also effect the current residents of Gelndobbin Road. The fertilizers will enter the aqueduct and have a direct impact on our families. Will this be healthy? No. What about the impact to the wildlife in the area. We have fox, deer, rabbits, hawks, ground hogs, and many other animals that will be displaced by this development. Where will they go and how will it affect you and I? We may have more animals in and around our homes looking for food and shelter that was taken from them. This will allow for more disease and danger for your family and mine. Will this be healthy? No. What will this do for our property value? If they build homes of lesser value then our property values will decline. However, our taxes will not decline. We (the tax payers) will need to pay for the services to support such a development. I oppose the building of 130 single family (?) structures on 1/3 acre lots on Glendobbin Road. I plan to attend the rezoning hearing and bring these issues to floor in opposition of the development. Concerned Tax Payer, Voter, and Resident of Frederick County of 1 8/22/2005 8:36 AM :7 • WAIVER and SUBDIVISION APPROVAL REQUEST FOR ANTHONY COOK AND SUBDIVISION #17-05 OF MEADOWFIELD Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator Titis report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 05/18/05 Tabled 09/07/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/28/05 Pending LOCATION: This property is located on the west side of Meadowbrook Drive (Route 1021), 300 feet south of the intersection with Highlander Road (Route 1020). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 8513-1-12A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Zone RP South: Zone RP East: Zone RP West: Zone RP Use: Residential Use Residential Use Residential Use Residential SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 1.717 acres into five single family detached traditional lots (maximum area of 12,422 square feet each). Subdivision Application #17-05 August 24, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: Department of Transportation: The application for subdivision of this property appears to have measurable impact on Routes 1021 and 1065, the VDOT facilities which would provide access to the property. Before development, you will need to contact Mr. Bill Stover, Maintenance Superintendent at our Stephens City Headquarters at (540) 869-1100, to secure the necessary private entrance permits. Entrances will have to be constructed to VDOT standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Fire and Rescue: Water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Sanitation Authori : Need copies of all recorded easements. Public Works: No comments Inspections: Dwellings shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the International Residential Code/2000. Engineering may be required on foundations of lots 4 and 5. Parks and Recreation: No comments GIS: No comments Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed five single family homes will yield one high school student, one middle school student and two elementary school students for a total of four new students upon build -out. Significant residential. growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area and other projects will necessitate future land acquisition for the purpose of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this subdivision on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planning Staff Review: Public Meeting Requirement The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (Chapter 144-12-B). The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement may be waived under Section 165-134A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Application #17-05 August 24, 2005 Page 3 provided: 1) A proposed subdivision contains ten (10) or less traditional detached single-family dwelling units. 2) The proposed subdivision is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development. 3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 4) The proposed subdivision does not affect the intent of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and Code of Frederick County Chapter 144; Subdivision of Land. This proposed subdivision appears to meet the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements. The applicant has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. This project contains land zoned RP and does not have an approved MDP; therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action is necessary. Background The Board of Supervisors approved the Meadows Subdivision on October 9, 1972. The proposed subdivision (Exhibit "A") will create five single family detached traditional lots. These proposed lots are allowed in the RP Zoning District, under Chapter §165-65B of the Zoning Ordinance. Public water and sewer will be utilized by the proposed lots. Requested Waivers The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that subdivisions which result in lots less than 15,000 square feet must provide: curb and gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, and open space. The applicant has sought an exception from these requirements, as the adjacent properties are of similar size and do not have these identified improvements. In fact, the adjacent lots, as well as the entire The Meadows subdivision, are comparable in lot size sans the identified improvements. Therefore, the applicant has requested a waiver of the improvements. • The applicant is seeking a waiver from the open space requirements, enabled by Section 165-63C; this open space waiver is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. r The applicant is seeking an exception from the: streets (144-17); curb and gutter requirements (Section 144-17L); sidewalks (Section 144-18(1)); and streetlights (Section 144-19). These exceptions may be granted by the Board of Supervisors (Section 144- 5), with a recommendation form the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 09/07/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission at its May 18, 2005, voted to table this application to allow the applicant time to provide the Planning Commission answers to any possible outstanding legal issues. This property was vacated by Frederick County on April 23, 2003, as noted by the resolution attached with this subdivision request. This property is owned outright by Mr. Cook as noted by the legal documents. The proposed subdivision appears to satisfy agency and ordinance requirements, once minor issues are addressed. The proposed five (5) residential lots will range in size from 12,422 to 19,805 square feet. These proposed lots comply with the dimensional Subdivision Application #17-05 August 24, 2005 Page 4 requirements of the single family detached urban housing type; in particular, the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Access to three (3) of the proposed lots will be directly onto Meadow Brooke Drive (Route 1021), with two (2) lots having access onto Ridgefield Ave (Routel065). This property is located within the UDA and SWSA as indicated in the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. When considering the waiver requests, the Planning Commission should consider the surrounding properties and their existing improvements. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. Action on three items would be appropriate: • Open Space waiver (PC waiver) • Street frontage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street lights exception (Board waiver) • Granting staff administrative approval authority (Board action) Y O � / _�VooilsideCir�, Q wOOOROW vNi v Z m 858 21 45 0 �, AVILA 8S6 ?/NG v 85B 21 47 r8 S 8S6 �9�s LUCCIOLA ?r 8� CLARK 85B 21 48 858 2143 85 eAkFR POP21 R9 R58N01B ? 1 4? D4 858 8 P asV y�� 66 85C 2 51 s® POPS ry h TAYLOR �yV 8SC 12 59 EICHHORST SILLAH r 85C 12 61 85C 12 60 o �' w m Ridgefield•Ave N r N ~ C MCCANN 3 85C 12 88 w /CRUZ l ThO BAILEY 85C 8SC �jOSoN 85C 12 89 0 12 99 ? 88 1 SHIR LE 8 98 BELL 85B 1 4 HOKE 85B 1 5 PLAVNIEKS 85B 1 6 exosx4N� 858 1 cpt 8 8y0 BSBYFBF r r� 8S6 Ty/y! 7 8SC iT!!9 \ rs o Qy w m a r N C. - ft ` �P"`a°°° /\/C. -s �O^ Jew Meadowfield PYNE s, (85B -1 -12A Tanks v� as ypd 8r BSB�N So Trail. 8 21 18=o' 0 50 100 200 �!Nm m a SS !F/ " oo rn m m m Nrn� I J=C9� ha h N _Q2� m y S� A�F eSeTc�F� ?a P2� �i �, eD o F r A8 Ze8o-5 QrnW Driftwooc r p 00 CID 'VA, 8Sy9yOps *d' 66 3 C) ao 868 N 8 r? 6�c 19 Y O � / _�VooilsideCir�, Q wOOOROW vNi v Z m 858 21 45 0 �, AVILA 8S6 ?/NG v 85B 21 47 r8 S 8S6 �9�s LUCCIOLA ?r 8� CLARK 85B 21 48 858 2143 85 eAkFR POP21 R9 R58N01B ? 1 4? D4 858 8 P asV y�� 66 85C 2 51 s® POPS ry h TAYLOR �yV 8SC 12 59 EICHHORST SILLAH r 85C 12 61 85C 12 60 o �' w m Ridgefield•Ave N r N ~ C MCCANN 3 85C 12 88 w /CRUZ l ThO BAILEY 85C 8SC �jOSoN 85C 12 89 0 12 99 ? 88 1 SHIR LE 8 98 BELL 85B 1 4 HOKE 85B 1 5 PLAVNIEKS 85B 1 6 exosx4N� 858 1 cpt 8 8y0 BSBYFBF r r� 8S6 Ty/y! 7 8SC iT!!9 \ rs o Qy w o r 8S9gy.�/ 82 8S6 �6 a r N C. - ft ` �P"`a°°° /\/C. -s �O^ Jew Meadowfield Baa°` !/N 8 Forestial Districts Double Church N F fuge Church (85B -1 -12A Tanks v� as ypd 8r BSB�N So Trail. 0 50 100 200 S SS !F/ Bo 8S �/ ?g adoWly�k oo rn m m m v� ^ I J=C9� ha h coo _Q2� q'Pps o r 8S9gy.�/ 82 8S6 �6 a r N C. - ft ` �P"`a°°° /\/C. -s �1 Parcela Agricultural Meadowfield Baa°` !/N 8 Forestial Districts Double Church N F fuge Church (85B -1 -12A Tanks v� as ypd 8r BSB�N So Trail. 0 50 100 200 S SS !F/ Bo 8S �/ ?g Feet oo rn m m m m 3 y 9roy��N coo �z m y S+/y �9 eSeTc�F� ?a P2� �i �, �m e, K o F r A8 r S d .10 BSeIFGG �� 6� ��p jo Driftwooc r p m 'VA, 8Sy9yOps *d' 66 3 C) O Fy 868 N 8 r? 6�c 19 yFN cs a Map Features Subdivision # 17 - 05 N C. - ft ` �P"`a°°° /\/C. -s �1 Parcela Agricultural Meadowfield Lak--Ponds ~ Dams w+ Streams /N/ Retaining Wails Buildings Road Centerlines 8 Forestial Districts Double Church N F fuge Church (85B -1 -12A Tanks v� south Fredenok W E Trail. 0 50 100 200 S Feet Subdivision # 17 Meadowfield 0 50 100 200 Feet ^V Bridges Plication N alerts Lakes/Ponds ^V Dams w^- Streams /,'^ Retaining Walls Buildings Road Centerlines �,. Tanks-'' N Trans Subdivision # 17 Meadowfield 0 50 100 200 Feet Exhibit "A" FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE LANDS OF ANTHONY LEE COOK TO BE KNOWN AS MEA D0WFIELD OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MARCH 23, 2005 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THIS SUBDIVISION SURVEY OF THE LANDS OF ANTHONY LEE COOK AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT IS WITH THE CONSENT OF AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IFANY. SIGNATURE - ANTHONY LEE COOK COMMONWEALTH OF !/IRGINIA CITY/COUM(OF BEFORE ME THIS_ DAY OF_ PRINTED OWNER TO WIT: THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED 2005, BY: PRINTED NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES , SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PARCELS CONTAINED IN THIS SUBDIVISION SURVEY ARE THE LANDS CONVEYED TO ANTHONY LEE COOK BY DEED FROM JOY H. COSTELLO AND LEWIS MICHAEL COSTELLO, OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE IN DEED BOOK 957 AT PAGE 01 DATED JANUARY 27, 2000, & INSTRUMENT 010001262 DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2001. PARENT TRACTS PARCEL 85B -0)-12A 1.717 ACRES ZONED: RP �_TH of "Pc u GARY R, OATES v No. 1518-B Q_w `�I�P SURv�y GARY R. OATES, LAND SURVEYOR APPROVAL FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GreyWolfe, Inc. ilk Land Surveying and Consulting a T DRAWN BY: GRO FILE NO: 010 DATE DATE 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 GreyWolfelnc@aol.com 540-545-7823 OFC 540-545-4001 FAX SHEET 1 OF 4 NOTES 1. AFIELD SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY GREYWOLFE, INC. IN JUNE OF 2003, 2. BASIS OF MERIDIAN IS BASED ON THE SUBDIVISION SURVEY OF RECORD BY H. BRUCE EDENS, CLS, DATED MAY 11, 1970 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERKS OFFICE INDEED BOOK 363 AT PAGE 663. 3. A TITLE REPORT HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED; THEREFORE, OTHER EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 4. THESE PARCELS ARE LOCATED ON F.I.R.M. COMMUNITYPANEL - No. 510063 0200B -DATED JULY 17, 1978 -IN FLOOD ZONE 'C' AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING. 5. GRADING AND LOT DRAINAGE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH LOT OWNER. ABBREVIATIONS AREA TABULATION BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE ESMT = EASEMENT LOT ADJ. ACREAGE EX. = EXISTING 1 0.285 ACRES IPF = IRON PIPE FOUND 2 0.306 ACRES IRF = IRON ROD FOUND 3 0.293 ACRES PR. = PROPOSED 4 0.455 ACRES RES. = RESIDENTIAL 5 0.378 ACRES R. 0. W. = RIGHT OF WAY 858-(1)-12A = 1.717 ACRES p = PROPERTY CORNER FOUND 9 = 5/8" IRON ROD SET I I I I I D Q) O \ O LOT 1 \\ LOT 4 � ^ ' a } � LOT 2 CD \ �� LOT 5 I LOT 3 0 ti 80' 0' 80' %r GRAPHIC SCALE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE LANDS OF ANTHONY LEE COOK TO BE KNOWN AS PLT H OF V o I�� MEADOWFIELD 2 OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UO GARY R. OATES v FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1073 Redbud Road No. 1518-B GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA 22603 <' qN0 — GreyWoifelncL7a aoL com Land Surveying and Consulting 540-545-7823 OFC SU?",j ��\� ,T 540-545-4001 FAX FILE NO: 0103 DATE: MARCH 23, 2005 1 SCALE: 1 " = 80' 1 SHEET 2 OF 4 85B-(1)-10 DAYSTAR HEATING & 85B-(1)-11 85BNETT 2 ( MARK & 030004 E TUTTON ONALD D. & X030004055 � COOLING, C OLI G INCNC- I 1 BRENDA G. WELSH ZONED: RP 112 "IRF I DB 4 413 SHED USE: RES. O ZONED: USE: RES. ZONED: ON : USE: RES. nHED rnL) l� °36'27 61 5 . 5/8"IR B R L 1/2'7Rf O OSED 1GE 0.'.0�IEMENT' EAS PROP. S�pjNG &iNR I o LOT 1 m 12,422 sf 0.285 ACRES � 0 Im 10.24' p � 10' B.R.L. / p 19p.44' EASEMENT j--- z TERLIN T/ 5' PRIVATE 10.24' S 58°5002 E OSED A yI - 178.25' / O 0 . N 5g°50 . CEMENT 14.40' T_ SANITARY SEWER �0' PROPO�_ /1�-- IMAGE EASEMENT �--186 05' . 02 W. 20' DRA �— W N. 58°50 059'29" . \ ... Lu � w LOT 2 h I 13,346 sf h, h 0.306 ACRES 01 a W N S' ^^l 10'8.R.1, o \ N 54026'35" W 170.93' �� — —®� j ti LU An. O O 10'B.R.L. ko z. o W o C-i LOT 3 m 12,755 sf m Q `^,, 0.293 ACRESLU a 0 10' B.R.L. PROPOSED 10 DRAINAGEAND LANQSCAPINGEASEMENT:. B O N 50°1734" W -164.83' 1/2'IRF 85B-(1)-13 SHED KENNETH F. & PATRICIA L. LINEBERG SHED DB 773, PG 1015 HOUSE ZONED: RP USE: RES. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR P\_TH OFV THE LANDS OF ANTHONY LEE COOK TO BE KNOWN AS � j�G, MEADOINFIELD o O - OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT U GARY R. OATES Y FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA No. 1518-B 1073 Redbud Road GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA 22603 �9iy t�� O SURv� -- Land Surveying and Consulting GreyWoifelncC)aoLcom 540-545-7823 OFC 540-545-4001 FAX FILE NO: 0103 DATE: MARCH 23, 2005 1 SCALE: 1" = 30' 1 SHEET 3 OF 4 85B -(I)-8 85B -(l)-9 85B-(1)-10 HAROLD V. GRAY, IR IRMGARD HERMAN DAYSTAR HEATING & DS 373, PG 178 DB 880, PG 33 COOLING, INC. ZONED: RP ZONED: RP DB 790, PG 1582 USE: RES. USE: RES. ZONED: RP 5/8" USE: RES. IRF �� O 5/8'7RF _ �1127RF 144 o3l00"E 251, 84' (TOTAL)O- 112 "IRF PR. 19' DRAINAGE &��• O . - - 10' 8.R. L. LANDSCAPING ESMT 0: 2 om LOT 4 m 19,822 sf 0.455 ACRES .r_ E -165.93' B �2� P N 6262°0 7 7. 165.47 \ N 61°52'05 W 147 04' S62 002 19.48' N V),- LOT5 0 �. 16,450 sf I rn C � \ s 0.378 ACRES z \ C11 o \ m \ Z�Q o� \ 1"0' \ yL rc,9 10' 10' B.R.L. \ PR. 10'" DRAINAGE & LANDSCA 9ING ES. \ 3147RFN 50°1734" W - 91.62' (TOTAL) 112 "IRF \\ 85B -(I)-13 SHED r \\ KENNETH F. & PATRICIA L. LINEBERG DB 773, PG 1015 ZONED: RP EASEMENT NOTES USE: RES. 1. THE 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT SHOWN IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY OVERLAPS EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT. 2. A PRIVATE 10' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT OVER LOT 2 TO BENEFIT LOT 3 IS HEREBY DEDICATED. 3. THE 10' DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENTS SHOWN ALONG THE PERIMETER IS INTENDED TO DIRECT DRAINAGE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, PROPOSED HOUSES ON THE NEW LOTS, AND TOWARDS THE LARGER 20' AND 30' 4. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN THE CENTER OF THIS PROTECT. THE LANDSCAPING ASPECT OF THE EASEMENT IS INTENDED TO RECEIVE THE REQUIRED TREE PLANTINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 165-36.A. 5, AN EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT WAS SHOWN ON THE PLAT BY H. BRUCE EDENS ENTITLED "THE MEADOWS" AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 363 ON PAGE 664. HOWEVER, THIS DRAINAGE EASEMENT WAS NOT DIMENSIONED INFERRING THAT IT WAS TO BE OVER THE EXISTING SWALE OVER THIS LAND AS IT MIGHT MIGRATE OVER TIME. THIS PR0IECT HEREBY INCREASES THE WIDTH OF THIS EASEMENT TO 20' OVER A PROPOSED CULVERT DIRECTING THE FLOW, AND 30' WIDE WHERE IT ENTERS EWING LANE. THIS HAS BEEN DONE TO INSURE ADEQUATE AREA TO ADDRESS ANY FUTURE DRAINAGE ISSUES. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR LTH OF THE LANDS OF ANTHONY LEE COOK TO BE KNOWN AS OSP �I��r MEADO WFIELD ? OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT U GARY R. OATES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA No. 1518-6 N 1073 Redbud Road GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA 22603 �9 �Q GreyWolfelnc@aol.com N� SURv�� o�u� Land Surveying and Consulting 540-545-7823 OFC 1� 540-545-4001 FAX FILE NO: 0103 DATE: MARCH 23, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 30' SHEET 4 OF 4 APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 4�Q_00 00 Date: Application I Fee Paid Applicant/Agent: David Shore Address: 2045-A Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: 665-2197 Owners name: Anthony Lee Cook Address: 5546 Valley Pike Stephens City, VA 22655 Phone: Contact Mr. Shore 665-2197 Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Anthony Lee Cook contact Person- Gary Oates N GreyWolfe, Inc. Phone. 545-7523 Name of subdivision: Meadowfield Number of Lots 5 Total Acreage 1.717 acres Property Location: Westside of Route 1021 (Meadowbrook Drive) & 300' south of intersection wth Highlander Road (Give State Rt.J, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District Opequon Property Identification Number (PIN)) $5B -1-12A 8 Property zoning and presmt use Zoned RP and Vacant Adjoining property zoning and use: Zoned RP with residences Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes What was the Master Development Plan title? MDP was Waived Docs the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot): 12,422 sf X No No Yes X No Number and types of housing units in this development_ 5 single family detached I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning Department I also understand that all required material wi11 be complete prior to the submission of my site plan_ Signatuu-e: - Date: BRUMBACK LAND v / y6gsb AID voi % \F � 1. �G °�. GO a° ®- ADeo o \ • ° A a ¢ , �°.. s 0 ti/' ( • . a,.\ ; °o ri Od vo' No, cd � LpN C9i' A; -I 49 �! 13.459 Jd _S.2t2i'3'3_`_. ! GUARD LAT 140.00 m m 48 4 pp, $ O I 1 ,900 .d _® $12,007 41 al n. 6411.3 o"14 � _ 12, 007 Jd �. IS u 40 12, 025 jd 8' 142.94 1 S LIN 39 pf 13,239 yr ro� ��oolvQ��-.� �Y Q. I N48 DRIVE ' r 36 37 FINAL PLAT "THE MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION OPEQUON DIST. FREDERICK COUNTY, VA. —__II MAY 1970 SCALE.-. I"_• IDa H. BRUCE EDENS, C. L.S. OF 4 acb.Ll38 12,eo wl NOTES � • 9�? 1. 30' FRO'!T E11LDIM3 R,r-.,iTRICTION LINE OW ALL LOTS-. 843 2. 10' P7134VED STRIP ALC"' cM. INGS LANE RETAINED BY FR D[CKTD3INE FP W. C� NEFF LAT - C'h APPROVED t'Da 'IT;t%L WATER -m,p u / V9. DEPT., OF HIGHWAYS srD FO.q Y- -- - VA. DEPT OF HEALTH 47 S 11,900 or$�^t / H.C.(7tOWDFR,RL4.EN0. DIRECTOR j l pD ` i 140.00' -- —� n m 46 m - ; $ 11,918 I FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF S)JPERVISORS•- CHAIRMAN — ADEM1INISTRATOR r mg 45 11,936 Jd 8 BOWMAN --- --- - -------' -- THE ABOVE AND FORE0OIt:G SUE'DIVISION OF Z 7_ y LAND THE FREDERICKTOWNE COMPANY AS APPEARS IN THIS PLAT 13 WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ml ACCO'ZDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDER- ---` V• 44 Q1 $� SIGNED OWNERS, PRIETORS AND TRUSTEES IF ANY. 11,954 yd ! I I FREDERICKT°YJNE CO 7ANY ROBERT S. BARBOUR, SECRETARY --1 43 11,971 Oi HEREBY CaTnFY THAT TF:£ LArZ IN THI1S $1J^cDIVfS:L`Y IS A PCRTION OF THE LAND CON a IED TO FFi:'T�• 'ICXTG'«„ 00- 1 1' m / c•,. BY DCEDS DATED 18 APRIL 1070 IN DEED ITl to 42 w` p S=t 302 PAGE 553 AND DEEDSOC:t 3'02 1 �i PAGE Eti6. I $ 11,989 $ •� =L—®® {Y j ' r —142.10.--{ I cCa'. �(" 5� 1 3 Ia, g H. BRUCE EDENS, C.L.S. $12,007 41 al n. 6411.3 o"14 � _ 12, 007 Jd �. IS u 40 12, 025 jd 8' 142.94 1 S LIN 39 pf 13,239 yr ro� ��oolvQ��-.� �Y Q. I N48 DRIVE ' r 36 37 FINAL PLAT "THE MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION OPEQUON DIST. FREDERICK COUNTY, VA. —__II MAY 1970 SCALE.-. I"_• IDa H. BRUCE EDENS, C. L.S. OF 4 acb.Ll38 12,eo wl NOTES � • 9�? 1. 30' FRO'!T E11LDIM3 R,r-.,iTRICTION LINE OW ALL LOTS-. 843 2. 10' P7134VED STRIP ALC"' cM. INGS LANE RETAINED BY FR D[CKTD3INE FP W. C� NEFF LAT • - �Po. '. •ab �r �Lj . ep�g I j fit' �o p,ro � ' rJ i 4 , 49 46�pes 50 F8 I e ` 1 g 51T 14 47 13 ., e 8 . _ 10,141 rom, l a9 E _ .. PARK I 52 - ro" 1- I ��cll IOo 3 " 7Y,893 11,900 !� Iy i i /ijV r 66140.00g Il,coo o oo II,a5o3o 3 le 0'0b 65 00 Q•r : I I _ - Fri • McA 13 12 143 �, . D 11,900 a EO pRrv� ® 64. II,900 JY 40. O Q 4ti 55 J �}� 140.00 �a m 11,900 ld ` p It. 900 p 70 ` ~ rr, 6g ® b ,� 63 2 s $00 11,200 r19Q a 6�' r < II,SOO p-� c= 56 ss•�, Ip rza lao.oa m 11,900 p p 62 4 -�4ar81' ra, 3 -_ 57 rr, 02 T�B� .140.00 "; t1,900,e 61 -s1.. 11.°oflccr: s9s°spc� w s-�•' 'ia84' ; •'''1� S 58 140.00 I I,S'00 60 1' 33" 12 679 )d EA 28 ' IE,O85 jf 28 DRIVE r4:app`, 30 8s po WI es.00. rlap0 e3:ap, eg • . rr, 9001W r gz 8 8g o0 '• po .sqp�. 33 �s rr,� 34 85 eY rr '900'd rl,3s o 3? 58 . •. - . T - 01JR tAND - .I FREDERICKTOWNE COMPANY "THE MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION OPEQUON DIST. ''�'• o - FREDERICK COUNTY, VA. � ' ' - • .� '�. _ ' 1970 H. BRUCE EDENS , C. L.S y ; ' SHEET OF, 4 a, ,f RACEY LAND 'm n p- r P, ERUMP� LAND BOOK 333 wn �� Ip' 41� ,7jcD STRIP' • _ - sT RITENOUR LAND FINAL PLAT FREDERICKTOWNE COMPANY THE MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION OPEQUON DIST. FREDERICK ODUNTY, VA. °c H. BRUCE EDENS , C.L.S. SHEET 3 OF 4 P4&K "THM MEAW.W. SUBDIVISION �pLTff op -, CURVE TAME > ` CURVE N0. -DELTA- . DEC. MLPs SEC. ~RAD= TANOE6"f An CHARD CHORD EEARING 1 - 90 c73 28. �. 20.00 -- 20.02 31.44 28.30 N 38 28 06 w r 2 89 56 . 32 20.06 19.98 13.54 - 29.54 31.43 28.27 23.80 22.43 39.03 ' (.N SI 31 54 s �T _ 68 - 12 05 20.00 �20.� I N 27 32 24 if 3 62 97 35 w { 4 5 111 47 55� I 74 43 . 35 20'.00 -- - - I 15.27 33.12 ?------- 26.08 24.21 .{ i s 80 59 45 w 6 l05 --16 -- 25 _-i- 105 16 . 25 ( 74 Y43 35 ,. - 20.00 20:00 20.00 26.19 ,. -`----4444- 26.19 15.27 -I 36.75 31.79 -- - '-••t i 36.75 131.79 26.o8 24.27 N 09 00 15 w- ------ N 09 00 15 w " ; 3 80 59 45 w " I 7 8 9 ' 74 - 43 ^35�A 20.00 - 15.27- It 26.08 24.21 S 80 59 45 w 10 105 16T` 25 20.00 26.19 1 + 36.75 ; 31.79 I N 09 00 15 w 202.36' 190.62 273.76 X257.90 90.677 e2.29 { 321 32 25 s S 27 32 25 S N 0 20 29 S 11 68 12 ' '05 170.00 ` 230.00 60.00 115.10 155_73 56.52. 12 13- -68 X12 05 '. 86 '. 34 56. 14 .86 34 58 120.00 `60.00 1]3.05 181.34 164.57 ON 20 29 E 15 I 93 25.: .02 ' • X63.69 Y7.33 27.35 N 89 39 31 w 16": 93 25 02 3:20.00 121.3 195.65 174.69 x 89 39 31 w Ch'ORDS OF LATS ON CURVE Im No, CHORD CHORD BEARING 7-`- 70.88 - y S 02 18 16 S - 9_ -?1.72 s 20 Oe_ go B - - ---- 70:49 3 _� - 37,55 38. A_ J - 10 - 59.63' _ -.S 54 ]1 z7 S -' _ -15.89 N 39.51 (77 X 15_ - ---- _ - - - 16 bj.2k - N - . 45 0 - 69 W 63.24 ----N 69 45 S�-N- - N 33 59 -51-x-`-` is 29.83 _ 0 o$_ i4 w - 21 - --_-A3.2 N 1z-31 39 w 02 22 3.24 8 76-55 W - . - 23 --- X7.5•, s. 52.38. os --- - - 3T_• .19.82 8 Ol�l s --6d �,�:.__ le.bq-�_ a 58 29.26 x r--- --67-- - - --- ]jo:25 48 58_E o -20.22.H `N 87.35 89 39 31 w �pLTff op I I > V •t'-Rflf ICA- Na. 9 54.17.31L11`•t { A1ay 20 ?005 ---- MEMO TO: Mr. Charles DeHaven, Jr., Chairman, Mr. Roger L. Thomas, Vice - Chairman, Ms. June Wilmot, Mr. Cordell Watt, Mr. Greg Unger, Mr. Robert Morris, Mr. Page Manuel, Mr. John Light, Mr. George Kriz, Mr. Charles Triplett, Mr. Rick Ours Mrs. Pat Gochenour, Mrs. Marie Straub, Ms. Barbara VanOsten- Supervisor, Gary Dove -Supervisor, Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth's Attorney, Eric Lawrence -Planning Director, Mark Cheran-Subdivision Administrator FROM: Dave Shore/ Anthony Cook RE: Subdivision Request- 1.7 acres, Stephens City (Meadowfield) The Planning Commission on 5/18/05 tabled our request for various `waivers and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for subdivision approval, asking for more information on the ownership of the subject property. We are providing that information below with supporting documentation. In an attempt to keep it concise, we are providing the information chronologically. It will show that Anthony Cook is not only the legal owner of record of the tract but also the adjoining property owners have no claim to any ownership or use of the property. Finally, that all actions we've done have been legal and fully within the regulations and guidelines of the Fred. Co. Planning Commission and Frederick Co. CHRONOLOGY OF THE 1.7 ACRE TRACT NOW CALLED "MEADOWFIELD" April, 1970- Sale of 31.545 acres of land Stickley- Fredericktowne Company Tract that will be subdivided into The Meadows S/D-Exhibit 1 May, 1970 -Page 4 of the Deed of Dedication of The Meadows subdivision. Par. 14 -Declares title to "park area' reserved to Fredericktowne Co. and IS NOT dedicated to public use. Exhibit A June, 1976- Letter from Fredericktowne Co. to all Meadows residents offering "Park" free to them for 60 days if Home Owner's Assoc. is formed. No action is taken by property owners. Exhibit B February, 1987- Deed for 72,393 s.£ "Park"' tract- Fredericktowne Co- Lewis Costello. Done in dissolution of Fredericktowne Co. --Exhibit 2 March, 1988- Memo from Bob Watkins, Planning Director to Ken Stiles, Chairman, Fred. Co. BoS. Notes ownership of tract by Fredericktowne Co.., tax records showing Lewis Costello as owner, notes that open space was not required. by county for subdivisions then and from Mr. Watkins that he saw no problems with developing the space. Exhibit E January, 2000- Conveyance of 72,393 s.f. "Park" tract- Joy Costello/Lewis Costello Estate to Anthony Cook Exhibit 3 March, 2000- First unaniunousVacation by BoS (ruled invalid by Judge Prosser due to insufficient notice) Exhibit April, 2003- Memo from Jim Doran, Director of Parks & Rec. to John Riley - Reports that Parks and Rec does not own the "park" and that it is not desirable for development as a park. Exhibit. 4 April, 2003- Copies of two Winchester Star advertisements ((4/9/03 & 4/16/03) for 2nd vacation public hearing. ( Residents at last Planning Commission meeting said no notice was given even though 15 of them did attend & speak). Exhibits 5-A & 5-B April, 2003- Memo from John Riley to Fred. Co. BoS Exhibit 6 April, 2003 Notice of Public Hearing on Vacation Resolution (2nd time) Exhibit 7 April, 2003- Second Vacation of Interest by Frederick Co. BoS. Newspaper, signage, letters to 300 ft. neighbors & public hearing requirements all done - unanimous vote to vacate tract Exhibit 8 556 E H IYJ T i #564 !! ROBERT K. STICKLEY, EXECUTOR & TR. II TO :: DEED FREDERICKTOWNE C014PANY # I #$#####%:tiFq` �...F-ki`k'.Y-Yr$-k:itirYr###iFititiE##-k-IFiFiFii-9F#iF*rFi43FiFiF-1F I nox 362 DGE 556 THIS DEED made and dated [his ___aeA day of April, 1970, by and between Robert K. Stickley, Executor and Trustee under the Will of iblary Evelyn Stickley, deceased, party of [he first part, and Fredcricktowne Company, a Virginia Corporation, party of the second par[. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part does herrhv r, rg,-,;.. ._.. and convey, with Special Warrany of title, unto the party of [he second part, its assigns or successors in title, 211 of that certain tract of land, together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, about one-half mile Southeast of the Town of Stephens City, Virginia and near what was formerly known as the White Post Road, adjoining the lands formerly belonging to Ewing, Dinges and others, containing 31. 515 acres, more particularly described on the attached plat and survey of 11. Bruce Edens, C. L. S., dated February 5, 1970. In addition thereto, and in consideration of the additional sum of Ten Dollars ($10,00) and other good and valuable consideration, the party of the first part does hereby grant, convey, and transfer, unto the said party of the second part all of his right, title and interest, of every sort and kind, both at law and in equity, in and to that property located adjacent to, and to the west of, the aforesaid 31, 545 acre tract, said property being labeled as "Swings Lane" on the attached plat and survey. The aforesaid is property which was devised to Robert K. Stickley, Executor and Trustee, with full power of sale under the Last Will and Testament of Mary Evelyn Stickley, deceased, dated November 9, 1939 and scop 532 PAGE 557 probated in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Will Book 55, Page 119, and is the same tract or parcel of land which was conveyed by B. A. Lemley, Katie S. Lemley, his wife, G. F. Lemley and Mattie E. Lemlcy, his wife to P. B. Stickley and M. Evelyn Stickley, his wife, by deed dated November 6, 1909, recorded in the afore- said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 131, Page 115, and which interest of P. 13. Stickley was conveyed to Mary Evelyn Stickley by deed dated September 21, 1939, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office.in Deed Book 179, Page 201. Reference to the aforesaid Will, deeds, surveys, plats and references therein contained is made for a more accurate and complete description of the property herein conveyed, together with all covenants and conditions connected therewith. This conveyant is made subject to all duly recorded and enforceable easements, restrictions and rights of way. The party of the first part covenants that he has a right to convey said Property; that the same is free from liens and encumbrances and that he will forever warrant and defend the title thereto. WITNESS the following signature and seal this /,S(/ day of .April, 1970. (SEAL) RS Bert K. Stic Gley, Executor d rustee under the Will of .v Hyn Stickley, Deceased /{ STATE OF VIRGINIA Oil, of W,;r%,r To -wit: h .1ttii l� f /� ;, , a Notary Public in and for the State and '�.�� aforesaid, hereby certify that Robert K. Stickley, Executor an It j rustee under the Will of Mary Evelyn Stickley, deceased, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed bearing date the 1.11, clay of April, 1970, has this day personally appeared before me in my and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. Given under my hand this 15tH day of April, 1970. My Commission expires e4l ,„o. tG. SEAL: ' Notary ublic �— 558 BOOK 362 PAGE 5.58 N 'co it t FAKE LOT DB317-P569 /GUARD m D9 2O1-TP512 o Iv .. EcZil �r�\ 1 1 ai 1 ` r S BOWMAN LAND DB 269- P 220 BRUMBACK f W � IPIN LAND (FOUND) i lU) S d 'ST N3"35'22"E 103.50' 31.545 ACRES -STICKLEY ESTATE DB 179 - P 201 1 POST N7"O6'I9'E 85.36 I / N19°12'07" F POST 4T-- A�yl RACEY LAND D8 186 P168 7D82 --NEFFLOT 83- P169 RITENOUR LAND DB 259— P493 SCALE 0 200 400 I. LEGEND 54 117,1 +-INDICATES TEU34u E POLES 1 5;171 (^:1•;:: 4 i VtRG fA FREDERICK COUNTY. SCT. .: •: This instrume C�al cu „ acknowled men -�' [Cate g annexed was admitted nd add[ [ t tax paw �to�erecord. i 7!� i 0.Qk� Clerk 1 II EXHIBIT A i 353 PArE 6.x,1 12) Enforcement: The provisions herein contained shall run with and bind the land an eac 1 s enforceable by Fredericktowne Company, Its assigns and successors in title and by any owner of any numbered lot. And the fallure of any of them to enforce any covenants, conditions, reservations or restrictions contained herein shAll not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter as to a default occurring prior or subsequent thereto. .Furthermore, the declaration of invalidity of any one or more of the provisions herein contained shall not affect the validity of the others. All of the covenants and restrictions herein shall be binding and remain in full force and effect until july 1, 1985, 'and shall be renewed thereafter automatically for additional successive Ten (10) year periods, unless the owners of a majority of the subdivided lots in this subdivision shall, at least Six (6). months prior to any such renewal date, execute and record an • agreement superceding; altering of abrogating the covenants and restric- tions Ite-rcin contained, and -record such agreement among the land records in the aforesaid Clerk's Office *and giving public notice by publishing such proposed agreement superceding, altering or abrogating the covenants and restrictions herein or any one or more of them, at least Six (6) months' prior to the expiration of any such period in some newspaper having general circulation within Frederick County. 13) Animals:.No livestock and fowls, such' as cattle, horses, hogs, goats, s letup, turkeys, ducks and chickens, shall bd'ktle talned on any lot, or main - 14) All land areas other than streets have titie.reserved in Fredericktowne Company and are not, because of any designation as park area or otherwise, dedicated thereby to public use. 15) Fredericktowne Company reserves the right alone''to waive any one or all of rile restrictive covenants, conditions, reservations and restrictions as to the sale or transfer of any future lot or lots except that It cannot reduce tot size nor change the development from residential to commercial except as shown on rho Plat at the date of record. This waiver .shall not affect the binding effect of the covenant's conditions upon any other lots. Fredericktowne Company does further reserve the right alone to Impose additional restrictive covenants, conditions, reservations and restrictions as to the sale and transfer of other lots. of any further lot or lots and such Imposition shall not affect the -binding effect of these provisions upon any 16) Tile covenants and restrictions herein contained shall not impose any restraint on any portion of land now owned or hereafter acquired by Fredericktowne Company, its assigns or successors in title; or adjoining, adjacent to or otherwise related in any way to "THE MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION as shown on th'O attached Plat, FREDERICKTOWNE COMPANY BY -9e - t, .. . r s enr EXHIBIT B JUNE 1, 1976 • "THE HEADOWS" Dear Property Owners: As you; are prof}ably aware, when Fredericktowne Company recorded its plat of "ih6 Meadows" subdivision a parcel of land containing 72,393 square feet, more ?or less, was designated as a "parte". This is bounded on the north side by lot 13 and on the south by lots 12-18, on the Nest by Meadow - brook Drive: and on the east by Ewings Lane. The park is subject to a 15 foot drainage easement which runs through the middle of the parcel. Now thlst Fredericktowne Company has, with a few exceptions, sold out of this project, we desire to turn these parcels over to others, We feel that it wox4d be appropriate -if the property is conveyed to a property owners assobiation composed of persons owning property i_n ''The Meadows". We are ready, willing and able to convey the title to said property, at no cost. to you, to a property owners association 'which is truly repre- sentativeo'f the property owners in the subdivision. This letter is being written to all property owners in "The Meadows" with the hope that it Will lead to the formation of such an organization. FredeAcktowae Company will take no further steps to divest itself of this property for a period of 60 days from the date of this letter- There- after, however, in the event that a property owners association is not farmed, we will feel at liberty to offer the property to the Frederick County Parks and Recreatiou Department for its use ae a park, as a capital -raising venture or for any other purpose it feels appropriate. This could include .the sale of the property by the Parks and Recreation Department and its use and sub- division as: residential -property. Fredericktowne Coupany will take no action to oppose siach a resubdivision or resale of the property. It should be clearly understood that in the event that Fredericktowne Company doe's convey the property to a property iasm-ers association, Frederick- towne Compahy will no longer be responsible for the maintance of that parcel or for real; property taxes on -it. Should! you have any questions about the contents of this letter, plese feel free to contact the Fredericktowne office_ Sincerely,, F�'DERICRT ANp ,•! 7167a President a EXHIBIT W J W a � J J J a !1 1- i:;(�i.�7.L.�i.,.V.r......,Yv� n��:s�;,s.�u..a 1s';:��c... W,a:.:+,v',.'u]..�;.�y�:.�,u�L'a..yir?��•�4J�.s:.ui1W ",::,I 5,. � �.c,..;:,:.:�s....,_.. 150-99999 1:I1/m s :/1/f17 i N N u g F�.i $ pl iA "•�� Jt � •.fF 2. 41 cx-N(FT #756 FKEDERICKTOWNE COMPANY TO: DEED * ' iWiS 14. COSTELLO BX638Pc543 �Lp( THIS DEED made and dated this SD�t1ay of '�✓ 4i"• 1987, by and between yredgricktowne QompaDy. a Virginia corporation, party of the first part, and Lewlu M. Costello. party of the second part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable considera- tion, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, _,.d pursuant to Section 337 of the Internal Revenue Code, the party of the first part does hereby grant and convey with general warranty of title, unto the party of the second part, hie heirs, successors and ausigns, the following described property and appurtenances thereunto belonging: Parcel 1: All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the imptovements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in opoquon Magisterial District, Frederick county, Virginia, and being more particularly described as that certain lo' strip located along the western boundary of Commercial Lot "A", Lots 1 through 8, the park lac€d and Lots 13 through 17, "The Meadows" Subdivision, said 10' strip being more particularly described on the deed of dedication and declaration of plat dated May 11, 1970 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 363 at Pago 658, and being a portion of the same property acquired by the party of the first part by (a) deed from Harry L. Fake, et ux, dated April 10, 1970 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 362 at Page 553 and (b) deed from Robert K. Stickley. Executor and Trustee, dated April 15. 1970 and recorded in'tht aforesaid Clark!s'Otfice•in Deed Book 362 at Page 556. Parcel 2: All that certain tract or parcel of land,•together with the improvener•ts thereon and the'appurtonancea thereunto belonging,•lying and being situate In Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County. Virginia. containing :2,393 square feet, and being designated as "Park" on the deed of dedication and declaration of plat of "The Meadows" Subdivision. dated May 11, 1970 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office.i.n Deed Book 363 at Page 658, and being a portion of the same property 'F Cr a}.a`1n�ati's'm.Lniuuw3.�,*✓s...- s.w.r:.a�ua�nbL.ck'Sd��''�a�� Se.• 'Irv,.S„Lu:+.•�Se�.�c,m.��.w'`Sy�Yu:.rt.�..,,tr,:a3_.'�� =7�.:.,�uL�_vv:y'�m.a.�...,s..J._.: ;. __.�.__.._, 544 0A,638PG544 acquired by the party of the first part by dead from Robert K. Stickloy, Executor and Trustee, dated April 15, 1970 and recorded in the aforesaid Clark's Office in Deed Book 362 at Page 556. Parcel 3: All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Opequon Haglaterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly described as Lot 3, Section A, Valley UFarms, on that certain plat made by Richard Coodo. C.S., dated September, 1957 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed nook 250 at Page 131, and being a portion of the samo property acquired by the Varty of the first part by deed from Robert K. Woltz, et ux, dated March a, 1972 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk'e Office in Deed Book 387 at Page 465. Parcel 4: Any and all other lots, tracts or parcels of land and any and all right, title, interest or privilege in and to any land owned by the party of the first part located in Frederick County, Virginia, including, but not limited to, any and all rights of the party of the first part to amend certain of the covenants and 71 conditions specified in the deed of dedication of "The Meadows" Subdivision, dated May 11, 1970 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 363 st Page 658, and in the various deeds of dedication for Sections I and III, Fredericktowne Subdivision, said rights having been reserved in said deeds of ::''•`' dedication. Reference is here made to the aforesaid instrusents mild thi attachments and the references therein contained for a 4utthet-'and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is,uQe subject all duly recorded and.enforceable restrictions, easements and rights of way. The party of the first part covenants that it has a right to'convey said property to the party of the second part; that it has done no act to encumber said property; execute such further assurances of title to said I •r . OX63QPG545 may be requisite; tleat it is seized in fee simple of [tie property conveyed; and that the party of the second pant shall have quiet possession of said proparty free from all encumbrances. The party of the first part covenants that all noces- Bary and proper corporate action has been taken to authorize this sale and the eracution. acknowledgement and delivery of thio de®d. t0Inmss the following signature and seal: FREDERICK OWNS COME' 9y < Pf 10 fit STATE OF VIk ::NIA 2t- al—I ` OF To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before tae by Noel H. Horden, who is President of Fredericktowne Company. a Virginia corporation. on behalf of said corporation. [liven under my hand this �� deg of '.j/ , 1987. my commission expires Notary Public 1ex" "=:P" Comm, ern. � ; �� Thy bypymrrrt d WM4 W" orodrxVd a ow on T"-Cx ,3[1_ aw `� f1f\ - MM irM AAllkclr d �dvrowddRm�M VrrNa rvasxl .V• , � I Wks FROM :COUNTY OF FREDERICb< 1-S40-667-0370 1998,09-11 08:13 #048 P.03z12 EXHIBIT C 9 MEMORANDUM mcpar"tmeats of rianning and Building 703{665-5650 Tn* Kenne � Y. Stiles, Chairman, Freu eriek County Board of Supervisnra From: Roheii-t TJatki n=, ni_._tor JIB n1 Date: March ?_3= 1988 Subject: Status- of open Space ;n the Meadows We have looped into this and have f'nu_nd the _eed or dedi^ation, along with various correspondence on the- caner► spAro _ Nozie gi ,,o a definite de$cription of the current status of the open spAce. The original deed of dedication reserve$ title for the parte t_n Fredericktowne Company. Correspondence in 1976 described the intention o!' the Fredericktowne Company to give title to a property owners asaoc.iation or to the .Parks and Recreation Department. Ownership was not transferred to the County_, but we do not know ' i£ it waa transferred to a property owners associations flax records list Mr. Costello as the owner. The aper space was probably not required by the County. From the oL-3upne dznt of County regulations, there is probably no problem Yelvyi.iig i.i2e open space. 'i=here is a drainage easement t SC .1CJt. Please Ei nd attached the various materials t. rows; described. piGaSz let ine know is we can hen of further a si-St8nae . ui �--.- Y7 ^ "0--• --!'11 YY r-_ _7_ __.__ v'___-__ '31-11fnl l -nu UZ:Ja rAb UOZU CX/41FI i 3 BK951PG000I 3` THIS DRED OF GIFT.. made and dated this -J7"4'_ day of 2000, by and between Joy H. COSTELLO, individually, and Joy H. COSTELLO AND Lewis Michael COSTECo-Ezacutors and Co -Trustees of -Ej V y. the Estate of Lewis Meyer Costello, hereinafter referred to as Grantors: -and Anthony L. COOK, berainafter referred to as Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and is consideration of the sum of One Dollar (51.00), cash in hand paid. and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor. Joy H. Costello, individually. does hereby Stant and convey, with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title, and the Grantors. Joy H. Costello and Lewis Michael Costello, Co -Executors and Co -Trustees of the Estate of Lewis Meyer Costello, do hereby grant and convey with Special Warranty of Title, unto the acid ANTHONY L COOK. in fee simple, the following described property located in the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "Property'): All of that wrtain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the aPPurtenances thereunto belong. dying and being situate in Opequon MagiatarWDistrict, Frederick County. Virginia, containing 72.993 square feet; and being designated as 'Parc' on the deed of dedication and declaration of plat of 'The Meadows" Subdivision, dated May 11, 19701 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County. Virginia in Deed Book 363 at Page 658: AND BEING a portion of the same property acquired by Lewis M. Costello by deed from Fredericktowne Company. a Virginia corporation, dated February 4. 1987. and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 638 at Page 543. The said Lewis Meyer Costello is now deceased and his last will and testament is of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Will Book 103 at Page 1804. I 'r]JU UL: J4 NAA U6ZU BK957PCo0 p2 Reference is here made W the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained for n further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to easements, conditions and restrictions of record insofar as they may lawfully affect the Property. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. _(SEAL) . COSTELLO17, Individually (SEAL) . COSTELLO. Co -Executor and Co -Trustee of the Eatate of Lewis Meyer Costello (SEAL) QYIS MICHAEL C05TELL0, Co.Execufor and Co -Trustee of the Estate of Lewis Meyer Costello ST TE OF VIII I AT G To -wit: 0 u T forewing instrument Rae acknowledged before we by JOY H. COSTELLO, Individually, and JOY IL COSTELLO and LEWIS MICHAEL C �'Ca tore and Co -T usteeB of the Estate of Levvis� Meyer CoetaUo, 2000. r . ol .. this r )_ , til - f � rig M Commission expires r -� h1 NOTARY PUBLIC "Aa� i Deed prepared by: Thomas M. Dickinson, Jr„ Esquire THOMAS M. DICKINSON, JR., P.C. 102.2 South Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 VIRGINIA FREDFRIIXCOUi�l1lt.StT (640) 667-1095' Thb humm mi or wdl isg was pm duped tome on and lith caninmio or Pcknowiedrinceil thereto m6nozed was adtnitted io remrd. Tu Imposed by See. 3!1.1.802 of and !8.1.80) have bean pall. It m.aabl• v , Gant Fxt+/gff C BK96 1 PGO 1 99 VACATION OF INTEREST 0 WHEREAS, This agreement to vacate the interest of the locality bet n the L. COOK, hereina er o "County", COUNTY OF FKEDERICK, hereinafter "Cour and Anthonyh referred to as "Property Owner a u° WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner in fee simple of the following described "the Property"): property located in the County of Frederick, Virginia (hereinafter o. + v All of that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements w > thereon and appurtenances there unto belonging, lying and being situate in County, Virginia, containing 72,393 Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick being designated as "Park" on the Deed of Dedication and square feet, and Declaration of Flat of "The Meadows" subdivision, dated May 11, 1970, and N recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 363, at Page 658; and being the same property Gift from Joy H. Costello and Lewis x x w acquired by Anthony L. Cook by Deed of Costello, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book o° " v u Michael at Page T� G> ani � " WHEREAS, the Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat for "The Meadows 363, at Page 658, reserves o 41 a w Ln subdivision, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book Fredericktowne Company, a predecessor in interest to a� m title to the property to the developer, Anthony L Cook; and U1 a WHEREAS, the property owners of "The Meadows" have not formed any property owners' association, and are not required to do so; and w WHEREAS, more than twenty years have passed since approval of the Deed of Dedication and Plat; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department and other County entities have not received any interest in the property, nor requested such interest; and WHEREAS, the property is not part of any "open space" requirement by the County, regulation to develop the property; and it would be no violation of any County ordinance or and o z n M2rch 22, 2000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, at their regular meetinn on n H concurred with the vacation of interest; F i BK96 i FG0200 THEREFORE, pursuant to Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the County hereby vacates any interest it may have on the plat of "The Meadows' in the property herein before described, and vacates the designation of the property as "Park", such that the property shall be treated in the same manner as other lots in "The Meadows" subdivision, subject to all restrictions and easements of record. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Anthony L. C ok COUNTY OF FREDERICK J -ft. Bit e,/ -1r _ B y -- Its County Admin. and ,Authorized Agent Commonwealth of Virginia City/County of I to wit: Taken, subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public for the state and jurisdiction aforesaid, by Anthony L. Cook, this fiL �`Jday of 12000. Notary Public �t N-ly Commission Expires:_ (SEAL) J , Commonwealth of Virginia �% r City/County of izr tY-� to wit: Taken, subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public for the state and jurisdiction aforesaid, by 0 �'�, Ir , authorized agent for County of Frederick, this �r-=1day of� fn , YA 20U �luLary Public My Commission Expires: �•1 :�3 — V IRCIN1A: FREDERICK COUNTY. SCT. t 'this instrument of writing was produccd to me on Drat lrJ. I and with ccrttffcate of acknowledScmcttl thereto a nexed was adn hied to rcconi. Tax Imposed by Scc 58.1-802 of 5N-21—an058.1-801 have heenpaid. If=cssabie. %� / le✓ r% , .Clctk (SEAL) ExNiBrT q COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 540-665-5678 FAX: 540-665-9687 www.co.frederjck.va.us e-mail: feprd@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: James M. Doran, Director, Parks & Recreation SUBJECT: The Meadows Subdivision DATE: April 18, 2003 Please be advised that the 72,393 square foot lot in The Meadows Subdivision, identified as parkland in the Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat dated May 11, 1970, has not been transferred to the county and no interest has been expressed, to this department, by the residents of The Meadows subdivision for its development as parkland. Furthermore, because this parcel is a drainage area with a drainage easement bisecting the property, it is not desirable for development as a park. JMD/sm 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 3S E_x ++ Ig I T S_ -A p NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Frederick County Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing on Wednes- day, April_ 23, 2003, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, to Consider the Following: The Following Public Hearing Item Will Be Heard at 6:00 P.M. Portion of the Meeting: Resolution to Vacate a Plat and Convey All Rights as to "Park" - The Mead- ows Subdivision - Resolution to Vacate a Plat and a Designation Thereon as "Park", Previously Dedicated to the County on the Deed of Dedication and Decla- ration of Plat of The Meadows Subdivision Dated May 11, 1970 in the Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, Containing 72,393 Square Feet. Said "Park" is Further Identified on Said Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat which is Found and Recorded in the Land .Records of Frederick County in Deed Book 363 at Page 658. All Persons Affected by the Above May Appear and be Heard at this Hearing. A Copy of the Resolution is Available and May be Examined in the Office of the County Administrator, Between the Hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Inquiries concerning the above may be addressed to the Office of the County Administrator, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601, (540) 665-5666. The Following Public Hearing Item Will Be Heard at 7:15 P.M. Portion of the Meeting: Conditional Use Permit #05-03 of Martin L. Monk for a Cottage Occupation for Sales of Outdoor Furnace Units. The Property is Located 1599 Hites Road and is Identified with Property Identification Number 84-A-74 in the Back Creek Magister- ial District. Rezoning 905-03 of Custer Estates, Submitted by Greenway Engineering, to Rezone 281.5 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The Properties are Located Approximately One Mile East of Interstate 81 on the South Side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), Across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Development, and are Identified with Property Identification Numbers 64-A-82; 64-A-83; 64 -A -83A; 64-A-86; 64-A-87; 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Request of Kent Barley Orchards Inc to Remove One Parcel Totaling 149.06 Acres From the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Parcel is Identified as Property Identification Number 74-A-13, Located Along Marlboro Road,(Route 631), in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, R5 Residential Recreational Community District; Section 165-77 B (2)(d), Existing Lots, Which Addresses the Ability to Reduce Yard Set- backs in the R5 District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165, Zoning. Ordinance, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts; Section 165=82, District Use Regulations; to Add SIC 83 -Social Services, Excluding SIC 836, Resi- dential Care, to the List of Allowed Uses for the B2 (Business General) Zoning District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance. Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations.; Section 165-27.E (11), Parking Lots, Landscaping; Section 165-31, Protection of Environmental Features; Section 165-36, Landscaping; and Article XXII, Section 165-156, Definitions. Inquiries concerning the above may be addressed to the Office of Planning and Development, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601, (540)665-5651. Interested citizens may appear before the board to speak on the above items. (A copy of the agenda will be available for review at the Handley Regional Library, Braddock and Piccadilly Streets, Winchester, Virginia, April 21, 2003. John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator THE WINCHESTER STAR, ednesda , A nl 16, 2003 i E-,'Y,fit 131i 9--B v NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Frederick County Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing on Wedne day, April 23, 2003, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administratic Building, 107 North Kent Sireei, Winchester, Virginia, to Consider the Following: The Following Public Hearing Item Will Be Heard at 6:00 P.M. Portion of th Meeting: Resolution to Vacate a Plat and Convey All Rights as to "Park" - The Mead- ows Subdivision - Resolution to Vacate a Plat and a Designation Thereon as "Park", Previously Dedicated to the County on the Deed of Dedication and Decla- ration of Plat of The Meadows Subdivision Dated May 11, 1970 in the Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, Containing 72,393 Square Feet. Said "Park" is Further Identified on Said Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat which is Found and Recorded in the Land Records of Frederick County in Deed Book 363 at Page 658. All Persons Affected by the Above May Appear and be Heard at this Hearing. A Copy of the Resolution is Available and May be Examined in the Office of the County Administrator, Between the Hours of 8.00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Inquiries concerning the above may be addressed to the Office of the Counti Administrator, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Menday through Friday 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601, (540) 665-5666. The Following Public Hearing Item Will Be Heard at 7:15 P.M. Portion of the Meeting: Conditional Use Permit #05-03 of Martin L. Monk for a Cottage Occupation for Sales of Outdoor Furnace Units. The Property is Located 1599 Hiles Road and is Identified with Property Identification Number 84-A-74 in the Back Creek Magister- ial District. Rezoning 1/05-03 of Custer Estates, Submitted by Greenway Engineering, to Rezone 281.5 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The Properties are Located Approximately One Mile East of Interstate 81 on the South Side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), Across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Development,.and are Identified with Property Identification Numbers 64-A-82; 64-A=83; 64 -A -83A; 64-A-86; 64-A-87; 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Request of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. to Remove One Parcel Totaling 149.06 Acres From the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Parcel is Identified as Property Identification Number 74-A-13, Located Along Marlboro Road (Route 631), in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick' County Code Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, R5 Residential Recreational Community District; Section 165-77 8 (2)(d), Existing Lots, Which Addresses the Ability to Reduce Yard Set- backs in the R5 District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance. Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts; Section 165-82, District Use Regulations; to Add SIC 83 -Social Services, Excluding SIC 836, Resi- dential Care, to the List of Allowed Uses for the B2 (Business General) Zoning District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations; Section 165-27:E (11), Parking Lots, Landscaping; Section 165-31, Protection of Environmental Features; Section 165-36, Landscaping; and Article XXII, Section 165-156, Definitions. Inquiries concerning the above may be addressed to the Office of Planning and evelopment, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, )7 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601, (540)665-5651. Interested citizens may appear before the board to speak on the above items. (A )py of the agenda will be available for review at the Handley Regional Library, -addock and Piccadilly Streets, Winchester, Virginia, April 21, 2003. John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator f THE WINCHESTER STAR, W dnesda , Q2Oo3 -xHiSIT G of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: MEMORANDUM jriley@co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator DATE: April 9, 2003 RE: Resolution to Vacate a Plat and Convey all Rights as to "Park" - The Meadows Subdivision Please be advised that the attached plat vacation is back before this body due to a recent ruling by the Frederick County Circuit Court that the aforementioned action was not done properly. In the previous action, the board of supervisors vacated its interest in said plat since the county did not own the parcel in question. The land was owned by Fredericktowne Company and subsequently the Costello Estate. The land had never been developed as a park by the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department nor had the parks department ever expressed any intent or interest in developing same. Please call if you have any questions. JRWtjp Attachments C:\T)P\misememos\CountyAdrnin istrator\BdofSupMeadowsSubPark042303B dMtg.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 4�5-x1,tbt? % COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jriley @ co. frederick.v a.us NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Frederick County Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, to Consider tine Following: The Following Public Hearing Item Will Be Heard at 6:00 P.M. Portion of the Meeting: Resolution to Vacate a Plat and Convey All Rights as to "Park" - The Meadows Subdivision - Resolution to Vacate a Plat and a Designation Thereon as "Park", Previously Dedicated to the County on the Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat of The Meadows Subdivision Dated May 11, 1970 in the Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, Containing 72,393 Square Feet. Said "Park" is Further Identified on Said Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat which is.Found and Recorded in the Land Records of Frederick County in Deed Book 363 at Page 658. All Persons Affected by the Above May Appear and be Heard at this Hearing. A Copy of the Resolution is Available and May be Examined in the Office of the County Administrator, Between the Hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Inquiries concerning the above may be addressed to the Office of the County Administrator, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601, (540)665-5666. The Following Public Hearing Items Will Be Heard at 7:15 P.M. Portion of the Meeting: Conditional Use Permit#05-03 of Martin L. Monk for a Cottage Occupation for Sales of Outdoor Furnace Units. The Property is Located at 1599 Hites Road and is Identified with Property Identification Number 84-A-74 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Rezoning #05-03 of Custer Estates, Submitted by Greenway Engineering, to Rezone 281.5 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The Properties are Located Approximately 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Notice of Public Hearing Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 23, 2003 Page 2 One Mile East of Interstate 81 on the South Side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), Across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Development, and are Identified with Property Identification Numbers 64-A-82; 64-A-83; 64 -A -83A; 64-A-86; 64-A-87; 64-A-87Ailithe Shawnee Magisterial District. Request of Kent Barley Orchards Inc. to Remove One Parcel Totaling 149.06 Acres From the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Parcel is Identified as Property Identification Number 74-A-13, Located Along Marlboro Road (Route 631), in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick Cvun Code Cha ter 165 Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, R5 Residential Recreational Community District; Section 165-77 B (2)(d), Existing Lots, Which Addresses the Ability to Reduce Yard Setbacks in the R5 District. Pro osed Amendment to the Fr. ederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts; Section 165-82, District Use Regulations; to Add SIC 83 - Social Services, Excluding SIC 836, Residential Care, to the List of Allowed Uses for the B2 (Business, General) Zoning District. Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zonin Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations; Section 165-27.E (11), Parking Lots, Landscaping; Section 165-31, Protection of Environmental Features; Section 165-36, Landscaping; and Article XXII, Section 165-156, Definitions. Inquiries concerning the above maybe addressed to the Office ofPlanning and Development, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601, (540)665-5651. Interested citizens may appear before the board to speak on the above items. (A copy of the agenda will be available for review at the Handley Regional Library, Braddock and Piccadilly Streets, Winchester, Virginia, the week of April 21, 2003.) Notice of Public Hearing Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 23, 2003 Page 3 JJ'ohn R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator ADVERTISE: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 Wednesday, April 16, 2003 C:\TjP\ads\PubHgAd042303.wpd 030011092 CO u i Cni'kl�, (i1 1 iii BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ln t Richard C. Shickle hereby certify on this 23rddayofApril 2003,thalthe following Resolution is a true and exact copy of one and the same unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors ofthe County offrederick, Virginia ("Board'), assembled in regularsession on the 23rdday of April 2003, A RESOLUTION TO VACATE A PLAT AND CONVEY ALL RIGHTS AS TO "PARK" ON THE DEED OF DEDICATION AND DECLARATIONVJF PLAT OF "THE MEADOWS" SUBDIVISION DATED MAY 11, 1970, BEING WE SAME PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO FREDERICK COUNT. SAID DEED OF DEDICATION AND PLAT CAN BE FOUND AND IS RECO 1DED IN THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY AT DEED BOOR 363 PAGE 658. WHEREAS, the County of Frederick ("County') is empowered to vacate the Plat and the dedication in the County pursuant to, and in, conformance with provisions of the Code of Virginia, 1950, Section 15.2-2270, etseq, as amended; and WHEREAS, the County intends to vacate the Plat and convey aal rights as to all that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and appurtenances there unto belonging, lying and being situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 72,393 square feet, and being designated as "Park" on tie Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat of "The Meadows" subdivision, dated May 11, 1970, being the same property previously dedicated to Frederick County by Fredericktowne Company. Said Deed of Dedication can be found and is recorded in the Land Records of Frederick County zt Deed Book 363 Page 658 Page 1 of 3 CD which intention was advertised according to law, and the land proprietors affected by said action were notified; and WHEREAS, the Board at its meeting on March 22, 2000 did previously determine that it was appropriate to vacate said degionatinn as a park and in fact; did so through its Vacation of Interest, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit 1". Pursuant to a subsequent Order of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit 2", said vacation was without effect, and as it did not vacate the Plat, it is necessary that the Board of Supervisors revacate the County's interest in the Park and vacate the Plat; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plat and all that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and appurtenances there unto belonging, lying and being situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 72,393 square feet, and being designated as `Park" on the Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat of "The Meadows" subdivision and the Plat appended thereto, dated May 11, 1970 be and are hereby vacated. Being the same property previously dedicated to Frederick County, said Deed of Dedication can be found and is recorded in the Land Records of Frederick County at Deed Book 363 Page 658 be and hereby is vacated to Anthony L. Cook, as successor in interest to Fred ericktowne Company. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator is hereby directed to place a certified copy of this Resolution of record with the deed records in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Frederick; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution, as prescribed by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, including, but not limited to, writing an amendment to Page 2 of 3 .Q UI v u the Frederick County Ordinance providing for conveyance of the aforesaid parcel to Anthony L. Cook. A DOP T ED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick on the ; ; �,j day of April _� 2003 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle _Aye_ Robert M. Sager Ave W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Sidney A. Reyes_ Gina A. Forrester Aye Resolution No.: 053-03 Witness my hand and the seal of the County of Frederick, Virginia. Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Frederick, Virginia COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To WIT: 1,l �ti E �t . '�1 v¢� , , a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, do hereby ce that ,��, a.� C. k iLk. k , GhcAtt ter of the Board of Supervisors, whose name is signed to the foregoing resolution bearing date on the day of , 2003 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged same in my State and juAdiction. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS , day of 2003. My commission expires `,��,ilU1H 11/{lytl 0.1 if � ) Notary PubliU r LL r �' ••• C:+rrr\le,dtwooarv7000-2muteadow:sntv.c.krl.walicn42303.4age 3 of 3 ~•i1 '' VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. ']itis instrument of writing was produced to me on ` 62 at 3 • 3 IP, and with certificate of acknowlOdgement thereto annexcu was admitted to record. Tax imposed tty Scc. 5&.1-802 of S-kL_ . and 58.1.801 have been paid, if assessable 4e.c 24�-'� , Clerk LLULIYV r v rx,� e, a.ar sort ... .. Exlsn„e Ffa :. am r,nir ry,� aort� armr:�^p ;a,.a,.,ne ra�T.pr ezr mbar Prsnnkv �rW roanro ore rvrrem makm mdr.r ret t/pnr fa mr vlgm/e Dry rrmenr ar # Pr x' -ii 3i �R' EXISTfN6 EDGE OF PAVEMENT ___ FX EP r ppmvel. Trans ort Nm(WOt).1d,, Road ane Brleye Spenficafronr and 5randams, Me VlgrMa fmsion and 5edlment Conhy' - -- Tne wind cower Vnes an reberonsfnrctedlrr eruNmn wlM Mex➢Ians and sMllmnr,ll auMwlN regvlmmenn. Aepnlatlans�ne enY OMer app/treble stab, federeL orgra/n fluNe. In cxe o/ p Y r '/� Ri1» > yulatigm app � � EXISTING FOGEOF GRavft EX FC 9. The conharrorrnall sowelnatr wlM, anesrmnye /or )mpemm bY. MaqufnadN run lrt be en Me SfanQards pr Sprrificafions and Repubrbm, Me mesfrMngenf shall povem.rrr �I r C EXISTING curia AND GUTTER s. Wnen an Dxrseawa m fapcee/w me Nsral4r/mg/s new Tine: 2 Aamnrin an anail+om➢ry cairn Me Wrest U.S. oepartmm<Wlabor, OwuPoflonal sa/ery6 „eelfnre U ` EX CG -6 ortty :Wall Nm/m sl/labor ane meted)/. on (OSNAI. arte Vlq/n/a OmrPo[ionel Sa(ery d HeaNh (vOSN) Ruks 8 R<pulatlons. -- -� 1 Me aan)opemc kea Ow must: Allro rkln9 en VDOT n9nf-'-weY.ell frame ronnet wnmh<rpemranenf er nm � Ikatlan endpaY deposit. vJ' W wry, +naNbe In EX. INTEFMEDfaTE cONTDUR <tl ' accgrdanro r l(h Me svimnf edlHm of VOOTs Work area 04(e) bre ttanual. Furthermore, aS fm , egntmr x' 1. mark Me ny iwafbn. � 1 R,0 O m O o FXfaItNG INDEN COMOUR 3D Tne cmrmwo snallNe-ins new sewer//neroan er/sr/nO manhole by ron ed/On Nafl9en must De urHfieal^arrvrdann cairn sertron t09.D9(c)eIMe VDOT Rvad6 BNdge SpeoAcafiens. 1 C pMr manMk. P4 T s Exrmxe sporftfvgnox xso.n. Er,n/welimrprw,fw,na:.wrr:eninrmnrw one: ammae rppmM,ke w¢n MegofnedNx rmvrnw. v9. me eryrloDerrm nbe ret�aak rorn/,ratmy, at hkerpe^re,,ny and aN uw/He�, mrw°My fmNrt:iynef vz SITE RIC w��a fhod(Y's maNrenann departmmr snallMmish aM install aN water meter fMnuyh l-Nrue. cele:. Junrnon res ron hers,err., owned by VDOivr pdva+a/nubxr untiryro pante:. tt rs rhe sole ? ?ei�' EXISTING TELEVNONf [INE r T T - B It is the devetoper's/mnfracrerY rupons/bl/l have she meter box esmmbl Nslalled cemsM. responsiWhry of Mr EeveMper ro (ante and raenflfy Illy farilifies ^r hems Mal maY DaMmnnkt mth Me w. N e � u Befweapermanenr meter is msfalled: tyro Y Y ➢�sosed rpnsVvrflon pnlviry. VDOT a➢pmval o(MeseDlans eoet not lndemniM Me denMper Dvm this W bury- GtF r•=1000' rc c 3 EXISTING SArvR RY SEWER -$-$�S a)Pre meter bor,wlM/wlmme and rover,,Ht pmPerfysllyned wirb Me coPnersetter. VS. Dies nfeaNms rclaHn p No/hamc maybesubJeR ro 5 coo3� Dj Tne (came an drover maN 11 Mal ode. 9 «g ro 0ek ronHmttbmrcula(Ims, anacmfrol or ra/e v EXISTING FLEClRIC SFRVtCf E E E qme efsmme."b, the rop o/f--bb endure mpperseDm snal(be beMeen la•ane 11'. ees dee edn ease by VDOT. anyaediNona/expens<mcunod asaresulf of enY Neid mn(on snail I-1 d) All rampanents ar the meter Dor assemby snail ba In proyw work/nq order. a ere: nslbll/rya/toe evehcer. EXISTING GaS IINF GAS- G4G- V6. Pdw to lni�lion I-,Mecmhacmr ma/(b<mspanslbk Nr eegNnrg all nernrs 9. amplNes+ ryVDOTlanduse PROJECT INFORMATION EXISTING SrDAN SEWER EX. 15"RCP for wa wa)tA rocaflpn'Me servire lateral is fo be uordinared wlM Me A - 's fn erm/U rot any work on VDOT right-anwey. N 9MeednD Assitfanf. EXrSRNG FENCE LINE X X X D)an AOpliuffm /w 5rrvrn mus�be made and /ns pard be/ work will brgN. rmgwred Dy me Mur vDOT Res/denry ORlcs,epm-ronsfrvcfbn cm(ennce shah be arranged and hNd by Owner c)Hn AuMorifysnaNlum/sh and lnsfelf%;%;mQt'water zemrn. Me en9lneef art(/or ervei�pe(w/M the att<ndann o/fha unfnRaG various Gounry eq<nrMs, ufUlly umpenie+ MMonY Lee Coek a Share red VOOT oMmaN o ww4. 5596 cb,,, P/ke ZO<5-A ValfeyAAKnve ENISlING DITCH UNF d)Fw alit h"antl Z-waterservhe; Me AUMorlry sne(I make the tap aM briny m<y(➢Mg le Me a ➢d°r sfmnem elry,. VA 31655 WinMe ter ZZ6al v� pAf Nemerere ronhaRar snal//umim andlmfal(Me meter tool/ assembly. Tn<Aurhadry will Tne Tonharfer MaN naHry ehefwar VDOTReslOenry Oma whet rKrk isrobegN wu>se Mr any vndeferminee Pnpne-(590)665-1191 �j FX15nNG WAtFRIINE %TFf - Nr TT�� e)m-aur orlfy rHll ursfaneu sewer loom/s. B lenpfn Wilma. VDOTrepu/ns aB nears aevanu n^flte pdwmanY repNredwnquesnd MryeNm. ll,! EXISTING nA HYDRANT sSg EX FII ) n usf haKabacknow auembly(dauDle �hec4 valve wF➢Z, as repvirM). rzre anemD(Y �' the conuarNr sneN De rnpanslbfe Mr mainfafniny aaepuate esus:Mfhe pm)ec[Dem foe aCJattn[ udk EXISTING wAtEF VALVE - y' - p- p' mus<meef ASSE SlaMard Na. 1015 ar 1013, roa-,2 ,, a romfrv.Jon enfnrrce Mer is runs£ Rea ane memtarn'e (n a¢ordenm wlM:billet 1.01 of me Pmo dv Dafa CCa V/glnre flvslan8d5ea1menf Confrd Handaeok. urtherm^n, attess oefner rtes a((ectW by Mls pro)erf Tar Hap Numaerr 58(Ij-flA yr JS'de fxlSTINGREDUCER ��6Y p� t AN Rm IMes malt nen afi2 servke meter essembry arNa beckaowpmvenLion arsemDty (OereRor dpuDk f'Abynane lhmuDn ronsUurtlm. rzre Oen/oyer snaAhave, wl(hM fh aro/thep/pfac; an empfoKe adGess Meadowbrvok ndve LeR Sleet �� t clack valve ore RPZ, es regal ).Tne,ssembry melt meet A59E Sfaneard Ne. 1 -or 1.1 Radio reed erofied Dy"'i`--""'- ne Vlginia Department o/Conservaflan and Arcrcatlon(WCRjN Erosion and sed)menf Control whp All 1.1- _,__ Ffpht Side: mores en repvlred. haer. A ane slRatbn conhvl daylees en0 measures onaronNnuaus bash /w properinztHlanon aM zoning P Rear: EXlSTfNG TREE DRIP FINE .�„r�- m lA bones ma/f De promptly rectified Legal Rehmnms OJOD1t091 35 ,tory use em mmmrt rMdr PGENERAL NOTES +D.cmtme�orrnan msern.argnfe amm,ve It amkKeane mainninm an mr nfe danny ands Me and' s;�,ylarmnr eemMee ROPOSED FEATURES snv rvposM Use Lot size f1, �On s/ con an u king lots oaf Setback 0 VII.All werer and sevum JMes wimin exkfinq orproposed VDOidh / MaxlmumfBWtdlny He: PROPOSED EDGE OF ➢gVfaIENT Iz/KknP I verm/h must De rssu yha-weysnaR hanam/nrmum thirty-six (36) Zenlng Dara Pdntlge JS' Mhom vDOTOdor fe enY cros(rvcfbn /nspuD(k yAf-or-waY InNes cover end wnen possible snarl be msfaued uMer msewaY drehrage fatllkles at canelRpelnfs. Opm SPoce HNfmum 15% PROPOSED EDGE OFGAaVEt P(XA^EG 1. R,e Manual on Unikami me cmfmt Devisrr(HUTCO)musrbe a°nereero wnen wvrkNg in apuelk ngnf o/waY. Anr musnlsuasuN ce mnaM'ms 1894 Pa cuszory spa hr V12 dbeln M1e curse alwnsfrvmon slial90eunsgltae a mllDroup Hiro the aaenflm/Pifn<vrn, ercJ rnrounferedW Poen 9yace Proporee a 11,911 s/ nNy FegWnd S ➢ r <all mud and deeds ham (fie DubNc dpM of wey Mat is kfr by nhrcles.M g s /case M that vkb.lNunN/an adequef eeslpnrnn be d9tt lm Wed b 9/nnr and by ort PROP. CUAea GUTTfA pgpv Dy_B J an ea in9lne sloe moo by <npMe<r and appmvei DY VOOT. 9 dl vnry/paes ane sM«va/xs, uumd Dy ms deKrppmenfW r)'�^llareas, bwmw mefenal ane un°e 1areas+Wan be lnsperte°eneappmved by vOOTmy A. -prier vROP. REVERSE <URBd GURER fMs ate wlllbefnegiespmslblliryWMeldevebyer�AN damage mustbe mpalndfq arginaf rondlrbnt. opianmenran0hll. where CBA resting rs reOWred,avOOTrepresenfative mall be present ro)nsum foe amp/e obtained is npnsenrative o/Me IouHpn. Wne^ sW( samples an submitted M pdvafr IaberaMrles far PAO➢OSED COMOUR SB 5. AroewTrvrtlwr enrr,rHe must ba rmreMdin acrordance wlfhme'Vlglnla Erosbn ane SealmeM ConrrW Mrsaffesti�e samples shah De shady ieen(ified and Mbeled as befmyin➢roapm)eRrobe aaepred by VDOT and D shall beperMmrea In enaNence wim all eppllcabk VDOT sraMertls sndpmredures. baek•Settbn J.nl. me cmrraRormwr meNxain Mn access /w me dumrbn'fhrp )rice raPAOOPFOOSSEEDD SSVTOOTAPEIt:EVEAWTEtRON 1+ApP. 1! AiDdSp-v 6. The mmm�w wlN be ns➢ onslDfe facade q uaM and pnrmpeWMrs s/re. ntlr llRz fn95%,o/qMeonyrica/maximum nrlry/zrormsrwerbenes Mae aelnb,erHcoonmopfarvtDeOdTf,n +lx(6) [DTI LOS Ill- LOTS LOT y011s! .s/ J755 sl9 defryas 11.1ng1.tJ5 1. am --b, -Y Z%pmmm-11 Al S spedlluCons.scerHfeO rope/allfest nportrnsXau De'suDm tteliro VOOidallY. mf�es��peHIPolN atn¢m s<� PFOPOSFD SANRARY SEWER -$ -$ -$ 8. Allconsfrvwkn will de dmr bfbwN➢Me Gws andgukreJ)nes ret fwrn Dy OSHA and VOSH. PROVOSFD TE<fPFroNE -T -i -T 9 rwxl noHry enOrnnrWrerom I- d11 -A-, Me,Pproveeplam and er/zary sire VIS. vOOT SfandardCO and UOVMeNm/nz shah be lnsral/eQ where Ndicefeam Me+e oleos a^d/w ass df,e°by v r ronddrons. vOor PROPOSED 445 tfNf 10. Tne devebcerknsponsNNafw Me nloca0on'any u9liNes mpuired by ffiis site pie^. I6.Tne/nsfeilallon o/ens mrmnces and rtmilOaret wilhM enY dMkered street dyhf-W-war shallmnf VOOT be Frosrm aSe 1.1 d GBn(rpl evices shown on Mk rife plan sneN lmmlled prior reromrrvcflan, mnlmun d -,y shnaaNr endo Me responslD/(try or Me devebpw. vROPOSED WATER UNE 11 All Ad VI>. britt eVDOTattnfance'an (reefs, a/f repo/red streets II. All ronrrolleaAll must De cemnachdMam/nimum o/95%eenslry MJbwiny MCMad'a'Wthe Standard Yt /goose and/prpenmenr markln9s shay ba tnsfaped PROPOSED WATER PtFTEA DIWry vroMrASrH-0998, MSH10-T99, ar VTM-t as eppamble. AnY fl/f placed under DundN fe eKo rw. ar Tz dtMrefion, by vOOTman aaymrnrorveDle bark /olbwiny m<Manuat On Contact Numbers Seals and Signatures _ yavemen[ must De M+DecMd aMapwoved b 9i srmttwei, w UniMrm rraMt Conho(Oevkes. vFOPO5f0 FIFE HYDRANT aBa P/fGl? try rnlr note 11 Yapohssionaisolls en9ineeTApeeterhniul mOd/r sumnedes I sr p'Ov1ae0, mvrae fg foe VDOT ReHdenry oBKe a Hsr'all metedsr sounes pear fe Me start' IJ, me ronrmrepris responsible/el mnfaRlny M155 UIIfRYndwNanY Slre wwN. All utlliffrs strewn an this plan a bn�Co rcs of=1/invorces MrmalenaH uHNred wifnln my deemled cone d9nr--Yb mu+r ae Pmviare Surveying r/rm: ��-,,d{{jjjtTH OFU me lwal VOOT Aeslaenry OMn prior toarev➢fanre'rner work. Vnlf mdtatalymes maybe obarvme. GreYWOXe, Hrc. (Sen)Il- 14. 05-1813 �. <OHMON UBEtSa ffATURES en epprorlmafe bra ons and rwr aN aril/ es maybe mown. Zoning EnMnement: 'y wwlN ronrarn all litter and debdt m -site. ilw work muffbe kft Nan wdedy manneret fns end VIS. W9Bmyere base end u•Dbase mafenals :halfbap/acedm rvDyndebymeans ala merhanicalrynader. Denary plan j 565E ➢FOPEF}YtlNf Of vFOICR t v ea�hw to-dos. De derermNea m,,.r Ms denslryrontmisMpin acrortlance calm 5«Y/on J09 or Mr VDOidoadane dddye %au ' nlnD (Sa0 665- u GARY R. OATFS > �m Rperi Alf andVTH-t0.Aneifled comPoW/vn lemnlrren shallperlorm M<se tests. Ce/Nfied roples e(test No. 1518-B NEtGHBOFING ➢ROPEATYLfNEs t5. An epprovee set or9k plammuslaeon-sire Oudny Na ronshuW/m Orouas. ports sheN De submlBed 1p VDOT daflY.unless syedfled OMerw,se. In add/rb^Nmeckmysrone depMs,a Srfr Oe➢artmmsf o(InspeRbru(SSOJ 695-5650 VDOT ppnzenra0'velrhellbenoflrMpane given Me gppgduMry l^bap/esenf aurins Me ronshurtion and hsNnB Emsbn and 5ealment ConfM: 6. TArrmaattw will/�offry aN uflliry companies prbrfo exovar/on wiM/n essemenb. a toed sryrenho <ry/p. Den,rtmenf dpualK WwM NO 665- EASEMENr1INE SanlmrvSewerarM Wafer. ( ) 5691 Yq0 SURVEjOR Mr soy#eDutretbn, ens disfuroee areas tNr caul be hR Mr mem Man Mires gspnaR ronrmrc Pov«Went shall be'eced in attnrdanm won seR/an JIS'Me VDOTRonQ and Bdd £rcd. Co. Senitafian Aufhwrh (Se0 ➢RDAERTYCORNEA fOUNn Q t as K. mow wu/seed ane sfmw, 05perlfinuons. DenLry sneflbe denrminedusln9 the aemirymnrm)sMy as syed/iedN Session 315 red VTN-l6. Tele none: vMzon (JOf /869.1061 raaf �o ledromrualnNn fecnnXr nshailcedorm Mese fesH.C`;rred ogles of Me fest reports malt De submittm 1 19:4-6ZBZ vAFXING SPACE TOTatS © fo <ss AIIepMnY Power (800)654-J)tl THESE PIANS ARE fN CONNAMaNCF W(MCDUNR'OF V Oidairy, n syetlned ofnem/se.AVOOT mpnsenlaHn snail De nonhe0 and given the opPortuNryrobe Gas: 5hmandaan Ga+Ce. (590)869 -Tilt ADA „aNDIaPIA- STaLL DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION GENERAL NOTES pesenfdudnpM<rom•:umonandf tin90/fhemnng/srNp. 65 URpCl-800.551.001 FREOfFTCKSTANDAFOSANDOADfNaNCFAadvOF g ON O vu.m,ayMmn wan serum Jyxm, me Mandenanr DzCav STRATOR xcA xis--s„au ofaPvdovfD er THE SIGNS T Alpe culverts Mlrry-six n6) lncfies endkq<r shall be PRIOR TO CONSTFUC'RON. lost:) mart romp(y with Ma VkyNla Unlhnn SfafawiQe Building Code ane Me Intemafbna/ BuIMNp Code/1000. <r^lored Defow the Do(mm ^f Me <xnvar)m ro defenn/ne Me fyye and cmdlnon o/Me MundeNm. The O 1' 8u0O ro herfars A!/report Ond/nys or/ouneaHon upb2tlanro Me enfllneerand vDOr kis➢pmvarydw soR Mplatlny Zoning General Notes 1 f SANRARY -E IDE -14A Z, gdesln o„e. Fl undaHgn dnf�-rs se Hll cgkmcMw(th v00>�Ra%d and mase I Standard PB- . when , yreld/ny, or w p prolessrma/bcensed WMeCommmwealM'Yglnm tha0 searfne smrnumr phn+ruemlftrd tar bwlMry anNerneed ter Munda!lm smelnr.flon `• 1�a Ch Se Il'9DU.moW al(Jnyrest/epnss buflonsro Me extemrper UBO lll.l-9l andmeet repurremenfs a/ shall bes0emneer AndtlbY l= -d by Me' ounfpevmve r n es 9n fnHmnmenral Er/sfN9 DtrmrDance Pmpored I /)9/n afnrAed to Mr Dulbin •� TUI 510AM DFgIN SrRUCNRf tOfMlnER a VDOT.a a / lr finny well be provy d!lgMce/sack � r VZI. Approval alrh/:glen shall erp/mMree(Jj years ham Me date ofthe apymvs/lener. Nres Acmeoe o_rred O/sNrbenre 1 liphh wli/De sMeleedw d/mRed Mprevenf LfG„T POLES �}. J. Tne 2000lnfemarlvm/BUIMIrep Coer ren be ufllIIed MrbuildNp des/gn. VI). VDOT SfandaN CG-IZ CUM Aa Aellbe/nsmihd when kMkefed on Mese tans anyorass MfiedD f pDlan on nelghbednD properties. Z �� "T' cops s p p YVOOr. laodpkln 00 aces AU- 0% J.. ufdoor fuz recepuchs wl/(be In an enr/ased q Q glom takes a Pmds toGTfON DETEST PftS VIS. VDOT Sf�fard GuaNnN shall De installee/he �emnfedanyw aspmpasedmthem )n aaeMa/rre niMa� s a a on a a. Mnalapprova o pus reu laYou[to beglen by V(HH ager grading lr mostly compleM. Wef(ands>taG Oases O% 0% f. TAMP lett will uhmt swaarmt t➢% o% IWDd/nve[adrkVA emnenv/robonmety FIRE MARSHALL GENERAL NOTES TRIP GENERATION DATA s nn/ =NrO lW0 l5 u EROSIONa SEOIHENTCONTROL ffATURFS Ye➢aw teen-pss >50% acres IS% D% 6. Easemm6 w(NDe �rrPn dmn e�oore :enrro me O Fl l. An Inl-V.A Dy M<FDe Nar 1a/Fce wiNdeferm awhen rurbiny must De velnMa ImfTVAOTfCrION ®O 1. 'NO Parkmy - fire t+ne'sipns w/M De pkudm Mesae by foe Fie ttershalll Olrecfbn. 1 gallmMiNer'Mat will service Mlt site must De Z 2 J. Tne mnnaWormpar alkn foe Me nremna Mfhe drrerwn reefermmre ey foe rim M.rshaN. Trip Generation nk�ed a,wegroene. o Q �t DurzF-rvgDTEcrroN ®® A.Bamm9 arn+A Plkror,HNml yeyanrmn mg'ns.nemrA uminy rommmrm eebd+kvronmitrd. 5Proposed Lots j w[ Emegenry rmlHe,rats mutt be nmylded,r m nme:. £in nremnes cam De,Iwan ee lrR vnperfineed. 10 VPD's per Potentia) Home APPROVALS '^ o arE<Xnan -w@ 10 X 5 = 50 VPD': RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER LQ LQOIVFFSrON OfKE ►�_ --w-to-A, © NAME: Fmeedrk CmnN submykim aemrm:furor Ot ® LANDSCAPING NOTES snrffNCE iD wfRf sunvadr CER TIFICA TION #: I and uflliry marklnyt. Unascacer must srake�nd BUY allfines�5(ake buWm must aivoM UHHrhs�9 5/feP/anappmvsl/mm VDOT will exgm fhne (J1 Kan hum Me dam'Me apymvalletter. sfDrMFNr rR.av O EXP. DATE Mrof m. :. £meedrk emnry zvmnp Ae/nNisfmr«,D➢ran/nwmr ar9K(sl rnr+ram me dam'rlm plan aaPrv•al. � 1. Toes and snrvbs sNfl De hnithysna nee of /nsett eggs,larvae, and d/+ease. me planet aha/(naw ample mals 3. Jhe£meedck Country Sanitation Aufnodh+vpmvel is valid MrnK seers ham dare of approve/.i/ronshucs/pre is GATE: FEe. 11, 10 The RetDmsib/a Lend DrsNrDer HfAafynrlY mscenslDle Mr carryrnq oufMe lone elsmmin9 artivlty as mr/ortn in endbewet/bmnmed. Tne planar melrguaunfn au plana Mrane year. mdo/Mrs perbd. AuthariN avpmvel she//De sold. ne phos. A el frededrk County Deperfinenfpfvubllc Works eppmvalls nor enough ro De➢/n sire denlopmene. Tne SUIE: b CONSTRUCTION FNTFRNCE Ll n- amtron/m m l p rs mgwmd win Me Owner, Sln ContmRan vubuc Werk; d oesyner J. M th use mmeeeamurM N eVplanNny beW and emune Imes. Taps Mm ram y/ant wll(be yrov/bed ^ � nnaRor must p a Lan° DHNrDmre vemrlf ane ayne ro titt /-1-gDa1-9 nor erommemNp enY s/tr xM.fe eowner S. Tne £rceedn <nunry Departmenta/Impeni0ns approval don ntromt/Ntee buifein9 permit.leuild/nB➢lens ihE.NO. Or Tne mn4actvr --l. -d 0lslurban mr fo anyslr<wwk orrmsfrvrfbn. 9. Pbnt rvDSUtuHons wlO De elbwee calm Me apprpval of foe owner eneme rneMc4 eounry Plan rep Denartmen repu1 bet- and De aypmveddy fnspertlons.rmctlnp anystrr.ctum. funherm^n, Me slh mus(meet ab -A EET s OF cnu.�J vry a.�cuu•rovr 1.urrrnvc orn/vunnuo eaYaart<r i�eig`�e°iire rn esre',;:;;vnm°rm,'= me sre. r<mvnrary ,e�ixnan;,, n r ,x \ I 1 /ar.�� C m y halm wlmm,eam aarxraeenaa<e,rc,s roar m,Y mre<aranryreee Dat wm reman \ i /m lanyer than 300ars. Permanent srabil;rarlm,naH be applied roared, Mat are ly ' f - e:r<rta,m,nrnrmarernnmeYear. z. °a�nymnarmrnme/xa �<a,wmm�mle„nabarmw.reaxmnb<,raDlnrmm \ '\ _ pmre ra wrtn sedimenfrr+vp/nflm<arvrea.me+nM�mm�re+amaale rot me t<m onry I w"'"4 7kf \I �� ai U ' pmten;m anapemrmenr xraDinaaUon WaxsollsrorkpiMs mske a, well ss D°nowar<as pp �g `”' and loll lnhntlpna/ly bansnPrtre hym rnev JeC s/re. ,. T� � P'P 5 Snea ` - ` \Pr 7 J.Apemr,nmt ve etaxve mvm snaN de esrabllsn<em amutl<e areas mat or d-1 unm---- _ d cemrenmfly srobl�ea. Pemanene veyerarion,FaH nor a<conmaerea s - --IDD------' urauumea / /� i' � I ��` • n 9P21 �� `' yMmYm,,,<ha rh.raaalnxm,matare. axarvw<.nwr•rMm:terax,yn � f ,rs<aim wa - navynr e /' \ \� .'� /�— i _--_r_ •�-T=-Qr .•! rrkv �.�J r �-�'� ro`;`.v'rota'/! a�r<mm`•IN,n`a:fn`;leve ^1,,,�tn,'____-_---- - — �•` i' / —S._ `_ < 9•r vv t' , — D<made/unRipnal belor<unzrream lana alsrurWna rakesyla<e. \� \ ��\ \ ��_ � I�f � — � -� -' ,rmroe„rnm,aarmre, sam,x m..s. dike„ne -� i� �� <• �'� •' / •� s/exsr' _ pyKvt ivn � � t 5 � f'n n `� aneye area e,erYe y < aow um. \ \ _� _ a. me mrn�mum storage cayarlry efa aemmenf bap snel/De tJ, <ublc Ya:as per erre o/ \ l \ ` ` -�---- az/naye ares anarhe Uay snaH m,Y<mw/eramaye areas less roan rnreaams. 4 t�\\\ \ __-” %%�' %%� /r�"� _____ _yr__ __ %7v J+'� a rvs•er rtsll vb z.n m:`/iHi� r`f m�nrorin°emai rrn,n v� , r \ _ - \ <w.r yy nary <. e<<o�efanr ysas< rand m,anm \\ .� t ,mimeo wa . e nerve <nxr woos ro< / _ nn,rpye, soda e. ee„yn.eana mn,mr _ s6z w 9r be p<Y e<a wkn assn/wan/.p<xfaDrnnna m<,srms rrnnrmepraerenemrren<e. f \`�. i __ --' _�' 'l'v'97.f F h.SPER- �'t =4 �( / oa�rzl </xl Nfa ecmrmrrermnrnPnsn+nnar mweawn<art Prmisre ra an/e,a mma,nre wknrn.n \!\ � � � '--- ---"�� /UiD7NG.' / ' ,xva,re mmPw,n Prp.man<M m,meh name m,m°. amn,Da<ra,<. \ / \Z\ ___-_' GgNDG �/ z. v.owa eY<rw,f<r,«P,/mm+rraPo rm,,eeaa+re erem,y<arammpmren,m xnnae (r� \ 1 �e\\ �\ �� _ '�LlF71T58FCLEARIN OP•:.yy,♦Qy �1�a9`nn +o, iz /xv.9ss' y> Fe<an n,wir<m,wnee xtlPr,aw,t<rm mmrnanr,<lx Dr mase yn<renms.. \ \\ \ ` al m baro m:`� r'=mr �n;i,°ri',eOnar2<:°,`Z,v'inS°„'a, :r��n'; ,,.r rnmy rnalror r _ \ \ \ R i z1• .,`. I _ _ _ _ _ % a tI IV xnrfi M+Irvnw rurourmhper/ormea, nrecavfbns rFaHDe takenrominen/re \ \ \\\\ \� \\� �' _--•- /( #� �\, �/)'- ,/ ---_- fee / { # en<rya�men4<ynfrM,ea/menrfmnspoH enasraal/tre Me wprk area to me yrcarezr e<renr \ \ � \ \\ / S / -I:Y nemlDle Bunny mnstru<rbn. xoneromDle matwYlsF+ll ee usMforrne mrswnion o/ nu,eways ane <Pnereams. Earthen pl/maY O<usea /or !nese srrvcru2x narm°rea Dy ` \\ \$\\\\ \ t \\ \ \ n'ne evew.smaroeas. urh�w \\\\ \il \`.,• M'� /q1 / / - wa ertpa�zrs'tFal`bemet are,ndbn/re9v/atbm pertarn:nymwarkn9,n ar crwsln9/e \ ,Ib \ \ `\ V\ / / 1/ � //J// /'/! /'/% `\` � \ \% S�jw rzbeeu atmmurse ma//be sramnrae mamas YRrworxmrne u.x'YP 9D _ \ �1,r\`'\`\\„\\ 1�\/ _ I t // '' '� `��a,��.��r�� ,�•`P-- taa;rlon`N aMa°appll<abl<mfena. sanmmac<erdanc°w/N me fillo rp mmeards rn \\y°s �`\\\ V\\� r�\\ %\'% _--T_ _--" �THESE�SARf FOR THE !%JSTALLATIO/�OF STORM SEWER, 3AfJITARY SEWER, B��IAIER: \ ,. xy more roan syD un<,r ferrrarwnm mares vv<n<e er mrrime. , INDIVIDUAL GRADING PLANS WITH EROSION \ \ ` t \ •i\%' J _ /r // & SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASUR,�S WILL BE \ \ D' Q� Y REQUIRED WHEN -APPLICATION FOk'BUILDIhG \\ t <. vmamrnwn aewarermy ypearrms,n,„r ae nH<rea wrpsseamrea9r. an,pwy.ed \\ \� 1�\�i \ _ \ /. ' ;s seem. Dom. anaexm,r9<emam,nn<r m,e aa<s naram<rsar \ \� \ \ \ �;// \'^��'— .__•, \r////. '//� ERMI]'S IS MA DE \\ \\ •q \1 ).Eo nam sfreemso'on-aro proy<rty. 2 5/ITEGRADINGMAYNOT TAKE PiAG W7T�1 \\ �\ 3 1 > e. e,roe,n„ an,n,rrae.<mmdi,n<dm,mym nm..... revanrcw�x. \ \\ 1 _ \ \ ,__a, --__ _Y \ r \ \\\\,"'\ - - / THIS PLAN,EX EP.TAS RELATED TQ THE ate s,lery re9alarion, soar 6e mm➢lea wkh , �\�\ ; J/r �\ \\_\ r�___ -\ �rrRP,, /'1 /FUTILITY IN;�TALLrFT1ON; \.\ lnv.°sn '�iaeC trt/wv✓0 o.ed,nfn,r mann<r. m;, ymvas s�shsl/De�v/N' ^\ \ , /•�y_ ` 1\, l 1 �___ L.-w•E. Ew 2 \ rn;r�w�eY°ois;i weues ro brow /mo- e;:<aramy,nrom<s. \ ` \ 1 �` \ l� \ ' f ,�' \ `. t 1111 w'steel°,m nareReDni/n<mnnormemures snarl De removed •rir�nla sap /// / �\ /\ \\t\ i\l\\1 1! 1\\ � i\``\ .��,.• \yr' p'7'IHG<1'K IFhYE i•r.� \\\ \\ \ (/27 ,eYe�rmnn°rmrewan,r°<l "a°�ne e,�":°'r(wn°a"an Y.rra nr ma / \ \ \ .` 4 _��\ �`,�\-\_ r• '' h" �' _ --__ _Jl%azo' o� m, W y. Pra <m<r,ndw, awns<Y�mmtx,f<rana,/Orrmrof<cr<ao-°m \ 1 r ,! � 1 \ •t ,� ! ! '�—y! o RUCG, ° ai,io'm°waierv„r�oni :xin< rerc�i ai,mrm`size now`a�inm°� m'air°«°;ti naw \ , \ 1 t \\ \ \ i 1 0 1 ® 2 LQ '.'m m<mnewmy smnaans maolren,: CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE e E o s CONTROL NARRATIVE WITH WIRE SUPPORT z N SILT FENCE CULVERT INLET PIPE OUTLET CONDITIONS 0 STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE --w raan,nmmrmPROTECTION ,.�..:.. •�"�•�""� � i a; rem/'^:a<amaa Wem m<n<,a+wDro°k mewrd9<nY/e nr pamar —• �� 'M —r � �� < ar mn be GlNaeC /nry5rerlaenxa auAalny bb.` neamk ane wyma kmubram avacspay Eroa.nams m9 SIDE Et AT!ON a na 5/re eorwkroru mr .obn',Pnwo ro evmonry mweee.onrtee me week Pn.rmm, w+mnsmrmon ti 0 - r d'm O4 2 O l9l e nreva<nr nets an ea/sr/nfl dre,naye swa4 maf rvnz rrom e� /am`�ek wrwro mr mmmenmmenr Orland elsrarorny,nMry, means week error ro : � � � r"`9` a Oo I ^ W � fl T <axrm wemxa�oneerrn<e `Hanel. me yroane mY<r/a arex,. JaH x/m,na,<ermmfmmm/mmx roe, a a r, n maf / of I 1 Amm-nrv,mery<,,,,°,°m .ter re a s m:ar w„re pm / — 1 N °m Q al F � me.e/ec myarce8 ere resl0ent/al r°b. � ero me apwe.ea ero,wn,ne marmenr rnnrml pm mar ee mamr,mea °n ens nrr,ra �, _wµ1 A'I•° � = •.� Q yr WI r•� •1�.� ..�T m erne: a<rm loam rn °sDA•s •syr„ sarv< ory )Mr gra, .:i.i `:�; `,`pw:mma \• L� •i'Zt�r^w ��msaa..,.�s s ..:...ae w W ! urea mr msn < mx o,sxro ema,s Je: ror:w,<w:r r. m+ewn<rrerr..ww. Pero arm�a=wvn, lre.mrri`w r. - ./ ei-�•`�^' ,.. s. dory, ve• ews Btarrtan sot ba rr,s .w PIAN YIEW mlx sailfrs a�Mmn1-11Y<//uw/sM1 brown slH /Dams Deaiak _ lana/<J ma ers •su9ne•erpsw, n>:,m,. <w..«re„xen,na,<ednmaxw:+, ea.,,::,neear v PPm n ar�ey"°”`""`rs OPTIONAL STONE COMBINATION Ems/on cmrrDr vmyrem namxm°,e,amum,na y„r. °. apmmf mm ma awHrnm l„ma.<e. tlwmy 'VI •, l / �V INLET PROTECTION NOTE: An ,re,,.reemm rapm.eer,em:mr m,Da „rare„rax ume I t �- // SILT FENCE USED AS INLET rsvew SECTION A-A •,nz H` upoKeO is hn�emrh wa,F rer4 se. bonne erw,rrmg npenxm,, arm wmar PnmPee mro+n eearovea m.mmq eevb, t� m wve r 3 PROTECTION IS NOT n,f,umY<rrs •we rae eoY1ef pm"" m.ma,<rw hHkwPr<e,H wmay mmwmmryre, pmaakarrYene.n.r.,m �w �,,,� ALLOWED IN FREDERICK riadm, Prmx ,, relmerv/ms w/nae ro,bnm aerase.<r„nne<m,e</mm<anr°�rs'ra`meprom,mr mrne<n«rr.e„<sswu COUNTY. CONTRACTOR MUST °q <' reyalrea rot e,M /pr of rhe rcme a/syph efbn o(Dul/ain4 ar w. Anv pec°'sary a SUIE: cwwa.roEnyx«MINSTALL THE OPTIONAL e�®e .m.rs nr nynr mednrm 2~�'^ w` STONE ARC AS SHOWN. FNE No. iL-- - B-B r` smm w«ru. mm:n reeron, r <nrwe eauaa Doers urR,neenwrsnmenr. �m��- .�aN��m-sir �� r HEET 9 OF n 20' 0' V' GRAPHIC SUES \ \ \\ \ LOT 8 LOT 9 ' LOT H LOT 11 \ 1 _ 85B- \ 858-(1)-8 jjj``` 858- 1 9 LOT t0 85B -(1)-I/ 1 (1 \ \ ^\ HAROLD V. GRAY, JR (� i 858-(1 -10 DONALD D. & MARK 11 ANNt IRMGARD HERMAN 1 1 , / --i \ \ ` DB J7J, PG l78 i DAYSTAR H ABRENDA G WELSH ,%030004055 / DB 880. PG 33 COOLING, INC.lNC. _ \ g ZONED: RP DB 756, PG 413 ZONfO: RP ZONED: RP ' D8 790, PC 1582 ( �.,� ^�{ USE RESID£NT14L USE. RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RP USE RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RP 1 \ \ \ \ \ USE. RESIDENTIAL y5te f »r S US£. RESIDENTIAL `I \ ATdF- \ \]`, \\ �`�\� .+� Sp•,».f-'�' '�''/ �'�'-�'' �'- �. �- t ._.fin-�.-_!-=""_T_�"` NO \ _-,_ \ \ \ "N" ri , _� \, \ �.. �' -C— --,, �I.s gAt ;kg EF ��. �� • ^u „w �ase (,l -7a House Site `\ � \ ' f arv¢t�ba.R RP FF Im..s' mh. q Utf RfSIBfNMt --------------9>- ! 1 \�+i•\ M LOT I � -1 PLOT i _ 1 jWW- 9 ,-`L+I Dl.1 __ _____ __.to�eM''��. �� .� ".. 1#Fs°,%`''tBlass _ � ° !ya`Qa��O -\ ; 2 E.� fs .wv.9s6• J --- Nov.F. ig fit LOT 49 \ \ \ ` \ \� \ \` `\ w ' — . r ro- S& B5BD21 -1-49 C. & v'i •X�' 'l / LOT 2 —JB60, .a RvDAVl as ___-- \ " ust RESWENI KAREN M. ADAMS \ ,\ t ; \ ° $°� \ /-------- \\ , DB 543, PG 686 ZONED: RPu' -- USE RESIDENTIAL` \ ° .Ibw �, \^\ 'X/ LOT 5 .�,' -. 1 '� (/—;�•—�� , — m=-dlw sgaJ 1IL4WA0 tmm -- 42 °... i House ro. �\\\ \ 3 \ \ '`\ ` \ . ti ` . \ •G, Fr•-razs'[mr I--� �'F// I CS 7 -o((1J-50 85C2-50 TERRY \ \ t \ ', ` ;i . ,. � c \�a- i �\.` •� ,•_, �\ t�1111 'I , ��'T / . DfHVEN L•oT� \ \ ` \ , 1' -- A 08 685, PG 277 ZONED: RP USE RESIDENTIAL \t �\ \ \` r. ,_\ ,\ \--_-_ House Site •o -1- 0-sa„ A 1OL(F y .s ®q \\ \ \� \"\� `'�� \\,\\ rL•^`__ ``- -'�'l tC,,�® F9R� g �. \ ,:! ! I °H ION SO RP / \� \ '\ ,\ t, I \ \ \` ��„ N lFI .�/ /� etiP - < LWy.'Hixx EFA f / r W' • J \ \ V211F ' 1 (�� so°' ♦ \' ,` 1 ' 'I m. 85 6,-xEVNLOT'(171cTH F. & PATRICM L. LINEBERC D8 773, PG 1015 ZONED: RP USE: RESIDENTIAL 1 •i 1 FIGURL+1 LANDSCAPING NOTES i 35 v g 1 lair <nnm.aa orxm<xrar rre<Ldsaaro� subsli(ureJ) 1 I � j °'°°" \\'w`on"" vrx oararoe RE°ewrr<-faraorosEn _ P``...\-- � �nY 0.�A�PRO�u vveREo.�0.0YBrE 55�aSf/lUIFD +..... n.s. xaw STMIDARD PRIVATE ENTRANCES nnxouc --_-� ' mam, as nF+aa9 unh io w� o�e<t t65rJ68 o/ s<rcm<,`vi emn vm.<e�re, a�a namre�;�a' Mr w; wWllq 10 1� 1� -•-•.,• -aro aaa S4N?ARY SEWER M -J a50; Y-!br' oaJE: zo s SCALF: 1'-10' SNCE N�, a. 21010J E1 2 OF `7 • 4~C� COG SUBDIVISION APPROVAL #25-05 STUART AND LAURIE PUI'NAM Staff Report for the Planning Commission ®� Prepared: August 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Aetioi- Planning Commission: September 7, 2005 Pending Board of Supervisors: September 28, 2005 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 320 Shawnee Trail. MAGISTEKIAL DIS'T'RICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID Nl ARMERS: 49A02-3-20 PROPHERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: R-5 Use: Residential South: R-5 Use: Residential East: R-5 Use: Residential West: R-5 Use: Residential Subd vision #2545, Division of Putnam Lots age 2 August 24, 2005 Public Meeting Regairement This request is for subdivision of a 4.802 acre lot into two (2) lots of 2.9452 and 1.8553 acres. This 4.802 acre property had been zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) when Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. This proposed subdivision is located outside the SWSA and UDA as indicated in the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Polices The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions within the R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (§144-12-B). The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement may be waived, and has been waived for this project in a letter from staff to the applicant dated December 12, 2003. This proposed subdivision contains 4.802 acres of land zoned R-5 and does not contain an approved MDP; therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action is necessary. Staf f preview The original subdivision where this tract of land is located is known as "Shawneeland" and has no approved Master Development Plan (MDP). The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (Chapter I44 -12-B). The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement may be waived under Section 165-134B of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provided: 1) No new streets, roads or right-of-ways, or extends any existing or dedicated street, road or right-of-ways and does not significantly change the layout of existing or dedicated streets, roads or rights-of-way. 2) Does not propose any stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot or significant changes to the existing stormwater management system. 3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision. 5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. This proposed subdivision of land is in keeping with the general lots sizes located in this subdivision. This proposed subdivision does not need VDOT comments as the road system in this subdivision is private. The Health Department has given approval to this proposed subdivision. STAFF C01\TC-LUSIONS FOR TILE SEPTEMBER 7 2005 PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING: The proposed subdivision appears to satisfy the requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. A recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. -7, , `SOV WAV �/ WAS / # 06 — 05 'SOVEREIGN HOMES Parcels f �01116 50� �oP Putnam f•, !4g SGL � Qom^ `'�`�, �• ; " `' i ✓a� 0. , of 01 W E f49A01.1 1 35 F rcris 11 22A r i t �•hr" / TR - HEIRS OF WARN E 2 0 R L PUGH �.,\ 49A02 3 19E 6 r O 41 > �•'i � �1 � �\_ fav ' atD 03 IS t `PUGH' 4 49A023°',17A`MM1FS�4 .'BU/RGESS?2; 1 1,1 4A04BERRY � RIC 49A02 3 19D',> r , ` r I CARUSO`"? ' 49A02 3 KFO i 18 Y r �� r',AZ� i MERRIMAN f 50 Al 15 Map Features WAV �/ WAS / # 06 — 05 Bridges L-keslP n C. -M Parcels Stuart & Laurie Lakes/Ponds /�/ Dams c Agricultural & rorestral Districts Putnam W— St.— �4'' Retaining Mlls Buildings Road Centerlines � . Double Church Fz__tugechuru, N (49A02 - 3 - 20 ) Tanks O SOUtlI Frederick /V W E *-.Trails 0 75 150 300 S Feet �S h•prlis L: r A9At711�1 YYA Y r 9A ,49AHINT 0111 29 7 _- � •M. 49A42�3 19E � ---��19A02 3 17A N tr>' BERRY a f" 1• w ��J! 49A423 190 ff r 0WA ARUSO ,/4a023 16j i s AIERRIh9AN 50 A 15 Map Features WAV # 06 - 05 Bridges AppIICa6^� on �ratls Stuart & Laurie Putnam .F LakDams es/Ponds /�/ Dams Agricultural & Forestral Districts w.-• Streams O�s� Retaining Walls Doubie Church N (49A02 3 20 ) Buildings Road Centerlines Refuge Church Tanks N � South Frederick W Trails 0 75 150 300 ,/••� S Feet Exhibit "A" FINAL PLAT MINOR SUBDIVISION LOT 20 I HIETT LR 03-13753 E1"IERALD LAKE TRRCT TM 49A1-1-29 BACK CREEK DISTRICT R5 RESIDENCE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINI IRF — LINE TABLE No. BEARING DISTANCE co L1 N 53-49-27 E 72.90' v['j / L2 N 46-38-45 E 51.75' L3 N 36-41-52 E 134.54' ov � a <v l �\ V�1 - TIH 0�� 3 LOT 2D -B n co o CNR�STt�PHER D. IRF ", 1 2..9452 HE. `0 °� �° FURSTENALI VE CID r o. 27 \ d `\ p 9 v ?/ /h Edda . \ PROP: DF30, e� PRESCRIPTIVE R/W ' lFR(�P. — 64 \�s�DF gi IRF WITCH HAZEL SEE' DETAIL IRS_ i i– – h C ` \ ABOVE - -____ _ DRIVE \IRS' u7cli CN W _ ,LOT 20-R - \ 14.43' (T) - I 1.8553 RC. IRF oz: -I .ct _� CV m EXISTING � ' i � (N ` j EXISTING DWELLING ��, • - � OD o L ppb _WELL wz Ir �5l F_ _ – – IRF m fRFI 5 34°55 00"W 301.05 SHA WNEE TRAIL CURVE TABLE N0. RADIUS DELTA ARC TANGENT CHORD CHORD BEARING .1 295.00' 46-52-56 241.38' 127.91' 234.71' N 60-08-20 E CHRISTOPHER D. FURSTENAU, L.S. 10 WEST BOSCAWEN STREET OFFICE 29 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 540 542-1164 FAX 540 542-1183 CNMISTOPIIER@CDFSURVEYS.COM MEMBER VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF SURVEYORS DATE: AUG, 17, 2005 SCALE: I" = 100' SHEET 2 OF 3 'L:UUNTY of FREDO MCK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICA' ION 1. Applicant: s Name: uar� � iii-I';c?�'1 Telephone: 7- Address: ti Q ha ;_ U nc-c. ra I I INi`nchc � l.r, Vii �� A 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: Telephone: Address: . Contact person (if other than above): Name: Telephone: 4. 7wVaiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest. intersection, using road names and route numbers): S -4 6. ParceiIdentifrz-ation/Location: Parcel Identification Number Lo Fn-) p K I,3 Magisterial District: B a C l 7. Property zoning and current ease: Zoned: "V—.1 District Current Use: R e C;) � i a l 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List 1/ Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats ORFICE U8E O.N-LYt Fee:' $500 enclosed: Receipt 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. NATME rAddress u h ani ' �� i da� - 1 1 ra ` , Property ID # 1 o r r� `S Address 'Wail Property ID# (� Address 1�7 03 Property ID # L u Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address [Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # - - Page 2- 0 \Land Use Applications\Application Forms\waiver request form.wpd SEP -01-01 11:24A?A FMI-SUCCESS lir§RTGAGE 5406701481 T '13 P. 04/04 F-603 LOT 20 200 iso vq.A z.8b2 mcEe� Nl— --•fes_„_.._ --_ is a N S6' PRE$CR,P71VE Raw 1 Zi*l7 FRAME `\mss ib RESIOD40E 320 POSTSQ e«A — 16 T •, 3'S' D q' ONAVYL p TECUMSEH TR. � vKll c /,'OAIV['CAY POACH k� S34'55'00'4% 301.65 UP SHeAYNE—E TRIAIW k I �1 HOUSE LOCA TION SUR VEYj n//S /s ID crnrY V/41 ON ocraICR 7. 7999 aN 1 1 AI,7DF AN ACGVRAit 4xjRvre OF w- PRCANSCS SY014V YtRf[W AND ;IfA,- MR,' ARE N(' EASE LCT 20 AI£N7S DR f/iCROACHAIENn 61S19_£ LW PIC' E4'ERA? O LAKE'' TRACT ORDVNO oltaw m4N wast SHORN N£Rnw, { �A �Wt` ZLAAlD t. TEs• f t TAX AAa/' Na dHAl-J-7O DFED398 FAGS W7 7. GVURj?rNr INS 11P(WtNr IN LgA6I Q'• nn £ 15• BAr4-, e tunwCT DEEO 000,,( 91.2 PACE 16/2 PXE Y9 ) Y WRt 14 S RF - REBA!/ r"O TH10 Put HAS 0Mrpm-m In maw h7y1�L[ mmnT a A nnA FCPd1t oATF.• E)Cl'a90 7, 1999 StAl.E':• 7' - 70(1' mo 9aGS Not qR f OAAJY PMIOATE AU ENa/NURANCES UN ME PROPEA tY OWYM PL�.57ERS PWOYAs R; PV7NAu W 4f 89.5cj H fGOrYJ NOTE , 7W,r' CiCCeVIAM,TY Ala 5i0:AJ PA(a.' 0/00 8 DAM 7-9)-78 { ENOINEEAS PLANNERS EDWARD W. DON: SURVEYORS CERT. NO. l 17 30713 SHAWNEE DRIVE, P.O. ®DX 2¢33 WINCHESTER VIRGINIA 22001 � (540)8&7--1i D3 Mr. Mark Cheran Zoning and Subdivision Administrator County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 June 23, 2005 Dear Mr. Cheran Please find enclosed our completed Waiver/Exceptions Request Application for the property at 320 Shawnee Trail — Lot 20 Emerald Lake Tract — Shawneeland. As you can see by the enclosed House Location Survey, Witch Hazel Trail runs directly through the property which essentially gives the piece of our Shawnee Trail property that we wish to divide a Witch Hazel address. Because this area was developed so long ago, no Master Development Plan (MDP) was ever implemented. Based on the non existence of an MDP we are requesting the County of Frederick, Department of Planning and Development and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors allow us to waive the requirement for the MDP and divide our property. If allowed, the subdivision of the lot would meet all of the criteria set forth in the _'Frederick County Zoning Ordinances Section 165-134A Waivers which state: (1) Contains 10 or less traditional detached single-family dwelling units; (2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for fixture development or subdivision; (3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; (4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this article. Based on the above information we respectfully request the County of Frederick and The Frederick County Board of Supervisors allow us to divide this property. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Q.cc.c-u: ;�j-1Qnrl Stuart anlLaurie Putnam Enclosures: Waiver/Exceptions Request Application House Location Survey Cc: Barbara Van Osten, Frederick County B3oard of Supervisors